Obama will finally make his kill shot and Hilary will have no choice but to hang it up. The writing has been on the wall for 5-6 weeks already and there is just no stopping Obama. A reasonable candidate would have exited gracefully weeks ago. Instead, we have witnessed a slow-motion, kicking-and-screaming defeat.

The masses of easily influenced and rhetoric susceptible will swoon and vote for Obama - and then the old white guy will win the general election. I have been enjoying the non-stop pounding of Obama and Clinton ads all freaking week here in Texas. Guess the glass ceiling for women really is tougher than prejudice and racism.
I would welcome the freshness of Obama - the international good will would likely be profound. He is a bright man and hopefully his optimism will endure the crushing reality of this economic downturn (courtesy of Bush's war and coddling of big business) and the life-sucking grind of Washington.
I see a few possible scenarios
1) he gets elected and the country goes straight to hell (not necessarily his fault mind you) and everyone blames the "black man"
2)He loses to McCain - falling for the white she-devil also known as Black Man's Kryptonite
3)He really IS a Muslim terrorist a la the Manchurian Candidate and things get REALLY interesting.
4) Most likely - if he gets elected, things go on - business as usual, the economy sags for a while the recovers, everything still pretty much status quo except maybe a whole generation of young black men have a real role-model to look up to and maybe things work out OK in the end.......but what fun would that be? FLAME ON brothers

Dear God,
please give Barack big wins in all 4 states tomorrow and haul Hillary out of her coffin filled with the soil of her native land, throw her in the sun and let her die.
Get this over with so we can start putting silver bullets in John McCain.

You think Hillary is being unreasonable? Hell, that douche Huckabee hasn't stood a chance since Iowa and yet he still is running. Only presidential candidate I ever saw who "made" money while campaigning (all those paid speeches that is).

The difference I see is that the most Huckabee is running for at this point is VP candidate - Hilary is still running for Prez. There's a difference in ego and ambition.
<br>
<br>
On another level, hardcore conservatives want to keep Huckabee in the race so he will push McCain to the right (again, possibly in a VP candidate role and staging point for a future White House bid). Hilary doesn't really have any major constituency that won't eventually get on the Obama bandwagon - there's no real party interest in sustaining a zombified Hilary campaign to push Obama into adopting any positions he wouldn't already take.
<br>
<br>
And as for somebody who used his hopeless presidential campaign for a personal fundraiser, try Pat Buchanan or Alan Keyes. Appalling. Huckabee, despite being a dangerous theocrat, at the very least was an elected official, so there is at least some logical basis to consider him as a candidate for US president.

I want Barack Obama to win. He seems like a decent, honourable, intellectual and passionate human being and a born leader (he is, however, a politician and therefore must be taken with a pinch of salt).
It's for those precise reasons that I can't shake the feeling that HRC might still win this. She's been paving the way for a White House bid since her husband was in office and I fear her ruthlesness and unbridled ambition may yet prove to be Obama's undoing-- 'Hell hath no fury' and all that. Don't get me wrong-- I find the idea of swaping a Bush oligarchy for a Clinton oligarchy to be utterly repugnant. But we do not live in a world where the good guys prosper and, to paraphrase Hunter S Thompson, whoever 'comes on like a mean old dinosaur' usually secures the nomination and thus the presidency. But let me be wrong! Dear God let me be wrong.
Actually, I have to ask, why didn't Hilary run in 2004 when a strong democratic candidate was so badly needed? Surely she would have rinsed GW Bush back then.

I complained in politely rude terms about people turning the SNL/Ellen Page talk-back into a political diatribe. So, since this is an actual political thread at AICN I't just like to say that the new girl on SNL, Casey Wilson, has nice boobs. Oh, she's no Debra Wilson, but she's cuddlesome.<p>Is it a rule that all women named "D-bra" or "DeeDee" have to have Double-Ds? Because it should be.<p>Oh right, the topic is politics. I'd say something crude about supporting the candidate with the biggest boobs, but frankly I don't want to see John McCain with his shirt off.

I mean ... with people fainting at his rallies and the such ... doesn't this register as a cult to anyone? He's a senator with little experience. While I'm not entirely in love with HRC ... she's definitely the safer choice. This Obama guy is using words straight out of the Malcom X catalog. If he wins the nom ... I'm voting for Mcain.

<br>I am an observer from the UK, i would like obama to win. I have nothing against hilary mind you. Having her in the oval office would be great. She would be a good rolw model, she has experience, her husband, led the US to greater economic prosperty.</br>
<br> with Bush and his cronies its been a complete fuck up. He's a fucking idiot. his cronies have been lining up their pockets. they've all made money at the expense of the people.</br>
<br> The leader of the Us is the leader of the free world. whatever happens in the states happens in the rest of the world. Witness the economic slowdown. It's gonna get worst not better people. whthere we like it or not we are all joined at the hip. for godness sake. make the right choice</br>
<br> Obama is the right man for the right job. he doesnt have as much as experience as hilary, but at the end of the day, the job is bigger then one person. he will make sure he surrounds himself by the right people to get everything back on track.</br>
<br> On a wider scale he brings hope. hope to the masses. Those non white people ( remember folks there's more non white folks in teh world then white folks) need a role model like this man. Those kids who think everything is against them, can see that a black man. yes a black man is in charge of the free world. On a wider scale to the rest of the world, having this man in office would put the US back on track, and guys you've tumbled a long way down. We need this guy. dont let us down. </br>
<br> above all else, if you have the right to vote, use it. make that change we around the world are awiating for.</br>

So vote, you slugs! And while you're at it, try putting a bullet in the Bush-Clinton stranglehold on the Presidency over the last 20 FUCKING YEARS. There are teenagers who don't know anything but these two pathetic dynasties! Do it for them!

http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/do_we_really_want_another_black
<p>Do We Really Want Another Black President After The Events Of Deep Impact?
<p>I am not prejudiced. Far from it. What I am—or, I should say, who I am—is a man who loves his country so deeply that he is unwilling to stand idly by while our nation allows itself to be completely annihilated by another incoming comet.
Have we learned nothing from the tragic events of 1998, when, under the watch of President Morgan Freeman, this nation was plunged into chaos, and hundreds of millions of people died at the hands of the deadly Wolf-Beiderman space rock? The mere fact that this country is even considering putting another black man, Barack Obama, in the Oval Office proves that we have not.
We can't deny the facts, people. All we will get by electing an African-American is Texas-size space particles crashing into the Earth's surface, mega-tsunamis that barrel into the Appalachian Mountains, and 6.6 billion dead people.
I'm not suggesting that President Freeman was directly responsible for the creation of the Wolf-Beiderman comet or its Earth-bound path. That would be ridiculous. What I am saying is that under the watch of a black man that comet destroyed the entire Eastern seaboard. So, if history is any indicator, a vote for Barack Obama in 2008 is essentially a vote for the complete and total obliteration of the human race.
Don't we owe it to our children, and our children's children, to use this upcoming election to guarantee the Earth's existence rather than dooming it for eternity?
To even risk putting Mr. Obama in a position where he would insist, as past black presidents have, that our nuclear arsenal is powerful enough to divert the incoming comet would be foolish, to say the least. Any decision like that would only break the fast-approaching space rock into two very powerful asteroids, both of which would end up heading straight for Earth, leaving all of us who aren't on the small list of people picked to live in the government-sponsored protective caves to burn, drown, or die while in the arms of our estranged fathers. The only difference is, this time around, the late astronaut Robert Duvall will not be alive to save millions of lives by conducting a suicide space mission to destroy the larger of the two asteroids before it enters the Earth's atmosphere.
In my book, any possible repeat of this extinction-level event is reason enough not to elect another African-American president. Consider that later that same summer, just two months after the first deep impact, this very country once again faced Armageddon in the form of another comet hurtling toward Earth. In this instance, under the watch of a white president who sort of looked like an older Dennis Quaid, that catastrophe was avoided entirely.
As if that is not enough, history shows us that, besides carrying the baggage of a guaranteed asteroid strike, black heads of state also give terrorists extra motivation to destroy the United States. During the presidency of 24's David Palmer, there were no fewer than four nuclear bombs smuggled into this country. That's four more than under any white president. Though we should have known better than to elect President Palmer in the first place (he was elected three years after President Freeman left office), the U.S. populace made him the commander in chief because it was swayed by then-Senator Palmer's commitment to change, his no-nonsense approach, and his ability to inspire. Sound familiar?†
Asteroids and nuclear bombs—that's what this nation can expect from an Obama White House.
Need I even mention that former President Chris Rock and his administration's slogan was "The only thing white is the house"? Though this attitude broke down the stuffiness typically associated with proper White House decorum, President Rock's laissez-faire approach not only made a mockery of the office at home, but made the United States look like a joke abroad.
I concede that the United States has had a competent African-American president in the huge black guy from the The Fifth Element, who did great things for this country by keeping the evil Mr. Zorg at bay. But that is years from now. There is no denying that by 2236, when we have flying taxicabs, this country will be ready for a black president. But until then, if we want life in this great land to continue as we know it, we owe it to ourselves to make the right choice and reelect Kevin Kline.

As far as black movie presidents, don't forget President Camacho from Idiocracy :)
I'm in TX and I voted for Obama. Will I support him in the nationals? Don't know -- probably not. I'll probably end up voting Libertarian again, just like in 2004. Then again, if Hillary somehow manages to steal this back, I'll probably vote for McCain in November. May vote for him anyway depending on what Obama does between now and then. I like Obama in general but some of his positions, particularly on national defense and foreign relations are just ridiculous and I'm not sure I can vote for someone who seems to think the US is the main problem in the world and if it weren't for us everything would be better.

Hillary is the truth!!! Obama is Muslim!!! Just kidding. I hate when people say that anyone against Hillary's run is sexist. Its complete bullshit. This campaign has been going on for 14 months. For the majority of those months, she got fair press as being the unbeatable frontrunner. Now that she underestimated Obama and his speaking skills that have the ability to motivate and inspire (just like Old School Bill Clinton). Her campaign faltered. She rags on Obama lacking experience and substance yet he's the one who ran an excellent campaign. She changes messages, and staff frequently. She has multiple personalites. And is the queen of double speak. She wants Obama to release his Land Deal paperwork, when its already out there, yet she won't release her tax returns. She really didnt realize that most American's are tired of the same two families running this country for 20 years already. I'm over it. She can't run her campaign or control her emotional outbursts, who the fuck do I expect her to run a country successfully? Obama FTW! Give up Hillary while you still have a chance to be apart of his administration. (forgive my typos, I'm using my phone to write this).

The regressives will try to spread a rumor that he's Catholic! I imagine McCain would, at least; he actively sought and enthusiastically embraced the endorsement of televangelist John Hagee, who has called the Catholic Church a "false cult system", "the apostate church", and "the great whore", even suggesting it was what led Hitler to be anti-Semitic. All aboard the straight talk express!

Time magazine and others have researched this whole thing. It appears that many of our Presidents with the least amount of experience have actually ended being some of our best presidents, on the other hand, those with the most experience have ended up being some of our worst presidents. There's exceptions but they are small by comparison. This whole Hillary is more experienced thing is a crock. Go check the facts. and actually, Barack has has been in public (elected) office slightly longer than she has when you combine his years as a state legislator and his time as a senator.

1. The country really needs somebody that is capable of uniting the country instead of polarizing it even more.
<p>2. It's time to put an end to controlling-through-fear tactics like Billary's "Who do you want answering the phone at 3 a.m." bullshit designed to scare the crap out of soccer moms.</p>
<p>3. If the so-called "experience" you supposedly have includes being incapable of admitting you were wrong for voting for a war that most of the general public knew wasn't justifiable, going on national television and blaming the news of your husband's infidelity on the "vast right-wing conspiracy" instead of owning your sham of a marriage, and leaking all kinds of insulting smear tactics to try and make people believe your main opponent is an anti-American Muslim extremist, you totally deserve to get your bug-eyed, pear-shaped ass kicked up and down the sidewalk.</p>

Her ass is bigger in person. This was last year before she announced she was running. She went to a Latino conference and gave this long boring ass speech as if it were a State of the Union address. A lot of people weren't trying to hear her because at that time she was uncommitted to taking a stand on Comprehensive Immigration Reform. But I agree with the fact that her butt is pear shaped. Its also huge.

We need a candidate who is inexperienced and without a clue about how to lead this nation. Barack Hussein Obama is that man! <p>Barack Obama has never served in the military!</p> <p>Barack Obama has served less than a single term in Congress!</p> <p>Barack Obama ran for the office of Commander-in-Chief after less than a single year in Congress. </p> <p>Barack Obama has been the star of a Congress that is 50% LESS POPULAR than President Bush!</p> <p>Barack Obama promises to surrender in the Middle East!</p> <p>Barack Obama is a wealthy Harvard graduate who made a fortune as a trial lawyer defending men like "Rezko the Syrian." </p> <p>Barack Obama will raise taxes to increase welfare support, continue to support abortion (including the practice of partial-birth abortion), and he will support sex education to elementary children -- including coercing them to embrace homosexual marriages. </p>
<p>So vote for the MOST LIBERAL and INEXPERIENCED CANDIDATE IN CONGRESS!</p>
<p>BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA </p>
<p>BTW - If you can't tell, I am a McCain supporter. McCain, the son and grandson of Navy admirals, spent over 22 years in the military with over 5 as a prisoner of war. He was tortured mercilessly -- but refused to give in because of his love for this nation. He didn't serve this nation with a "good speech." Rather, he served it through action. He then spent over 25 years as a Legislator. McCain is an honest and trustworthy man who is not owned by the Republicans or Democrats. </p> <p>Barack Obama, that wee little lawyer, is not worthy for the office of Commander-in-Chief. Obama hides his inexperience and lack of substance behind a good speaking ability that is filled with negativity toward anyone who doesn't agree with his hidden liberal agenda. </p> <p>Senator John McCain is the only SAFE CHOICE for America! </p> <p>Of course, Obama "opposed this war" from the beginning -- while he was working in Illinois making millions of $$$'s as a liberal trial lawyer and raising taxes to buy welfare votes. </p> *sigh* Some people are gullible enough to vote for anyone -- even Obama. It really is an, uh, Obamanable thing!

The media has been humping this guy's leg day and night! <p>I'm not sure what is more alarming -- the fact that Obama tries to hide his middle name, or the fact that he hides his ultra-liberal agenda and gross inexperience behind his eloquent speeches?</p> Either way, Obama is the WRONG CHOICE for America! We can't take a CHANCE on his inexperience!

Texas and Ohio, I know we haven't gotten along. I find Ohio to be one of the most boring locales on Earth and Texans to be some of the most arrogant people in the country (e.g., G.W. Bush). But I implore you, please vote for Obama today! We cannot afford to endure four years of Hillary Clinton. I'll be forced to vote for McCain in November if that fake yuppie receives the Democratic nomination, and I haven't voted for a Republican since...Well, hell, I've never voted for an elephant since voting first in 1992. Go Obama!!!

...its the fact that he hides his name. His wife said that use of his name is "fear mongering." Why? Who would be scared of a Muslim name on a man who is not a Muslim? "Hussein" is a common name in the middle east, and it happens to be the name of a former boss of mine (a great guy). <p>But why would Obama hide it? </p> Could it be that he has less faith in the American people than he professes in his eloquent speeches? Is his "hope" in America far less real than he professes? </p> <p>In the end, Obama is just a lot of fluff. He offers nothing -- except criticism of the status quo. He has no experience, no military background, no legislative perrogative. He is simply an eloquent complainer. </p> I've got to admit: Hillary is a woman of terrible character. I wouldn't vote for her in the national election -- even if she was the only person running. So what does that leave us with? </p> <p>OBAMA: No experience (in Congress or the military). A great speaker but offers little revelation about his agenda. </p> <p>HILLARY: A woman who knows the dirty side of politics all too well. She moved to New York -- because it was the only place that would vote for a political carpet bagger. She doesn't hide her liberalism, but is certain to move to the Center upon election. </p> <p>JOHN McCAIN: A war hero with over 20 years in the military and 25 in the Congress. He is a legislative "maverick" who often sides with his conscience over his party. He understands national defense and the military, and he spent years working as an advocate to Native Americans. </p> To me, the choice is clear. Senator John McCain is the only truly safe choice for the office of Commander-in-Chief!

Nothing says change like a crotchety old geezer so it's a good thing America doesn't seem inclined for a change. McCain would be first to answer the phone call at 3am because seniors have more trouble getting to sleep anyway.<p>
<p>Hillary is doing Obama a favour now. How ? Because by the time we get to the general all the possible attacks against Obama will have been rehearsed by Hillary. It's going to be hard enough to sell McCain as change anyway but when he is forced to trot out the negative 24/7 and finds that everyones heard some version of all the attqack ads already passing Hillary's lips his campaign will look like a Clinton hand me down. She's already moved onto the security scare bullsh*t and if that's all the GOP has in it's locker those stadium's Obama is filling will materialize into Votes.<p>
<p>McCain's not a bad guy and there's a fair bit of good will for him but he had his chance and Bush and Rove crushed him with smears & lies about black babies and losing it in Vietnam.<p>
<p> The media accepted wisdom that the longer this goes on the worse it is for the Dems is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the News broadcasts are all Hillary And Barack all the time.
Why devote time to a shoo in ? And though it clearly looks like Obamas to lose now, the delegate count gap isn't astronomical yet.<p>
<p> It's still reasonably close but losing Texas may just be enough to convince Hillary if it is a clear loss.

Bullshit. He hides his name?! How? When?<P>His wife is right in this sense - when people, such as yourself, emphasize and highlight his middle-name, you do so in the hopes that it will sink into the minds of those who aren't exactly up to speed on global reality. Meaning? You hope to equate him (by name) with less savory fellows who have happened to be dubbed "Hussein". You then bet on the idea that middle-America is too ignorant to make a distinction. It's a really sad and sick form of political douchebaggery.<P>Shame on you, man. I submit that you're a xenophobic asshole who is trying to hide behind a weakly nuanced "he has no experience" argument. And I wouldn't be a bit surprised if you "accidentally" called him "Osama" at cocktail parties.

Obama will edge Clinton in Texas and vice versa in Ohio. Obama will win by a pile in Vermont, and Clinton will win by a small margin in Rhode Island. Obama will pick up net delegates, and Clinton will say "Wait for Pennsylvania"

The man's not for sale - the lobbyists who own him aren't selling. Are these the guys who got him to abandon his principles and vote to kill the anti-torture bill? Quoting the Washington Post from Feb 22:
<p>
"His campaign manager, Rick Davis, co-founded a lobbying firm whose clients have included Verizon and SBC Telecommunications. His chief political adviser, Charles R. Black Jr., is chairman of one of Washington's lobbying powerhouses, BKSH and Associates, which has represented AT&T, Alcoa, JPMorgan and U.S. Airways.
<p>
"Senior advisers Steve Schmidt and Mark McKinnon work for firms that have lobbied for Land O' Lakes, UST Public Affairs, Dell and Fannie Mae."
<p>
Lot of French cuffs on board the straight talk express.

After the clusterfuck commonly known as the Bush administration do you REALLY think John McClain will win the presidency? Right now the majority of the american public wouldnt trust a republican to wash their car much less run the country another four years.
.. and thats what inevitably hurts McClain. Yes he has voted against his party in time of personal conscious but he's ultimately a 'republican' and that name currently has the integrity value of a convicted murderer trying to get a job as a day care teacher. He's also old enough to have a 4 digit social security number.
It pretty much comes down to Obama and Hillary. Hilary has experience but character issues and Obama is an idealist but is an outsider to Washington.
Personally I think america is ready for someone who will think outside of the box. You cant help but think if Hillary won, she'd spend the first 2 years of her presidency paying back favors.

Seriously. Nothing reeks of deperation more than trying to diss the man because his name is the same as someone elses. Maaaaaaaann you'd have to be quite the pond life to try that one, and somewhat lacking in brainpower to listen to it for a second. How many Asshats in the world have ever been called John ? Ergo McCain must be an asshat ???? Jeebus how desperate are some people ?

Just voted for Obama in Texas. Will caucus for him tonight as well. This is the first time in a long time where i feel that there are 3 decent people running for president. The only scary thing in this election cycle is Huckabee. If we can just keep this evangelical nutjob off of McCain's ticket, things might actually turn out ok for the country. We might actually be able to repair all of the damage done by president shit for brains over the last 7 years. No matter who wins in the general election, i see at the very least, a little bit of hope.

"Bullshit. He hides his name?! How? When?"
<p>Obama sent out talking points at the beginning of his campaign to "reject the publication of his middle name." </p>
Why? He doesn't have faith in the American people. He only has faith in those imbeciles who are willing to trust his eloquent speeches. <p>But even his nice (albeit STOLEN) speeches hide his GROSS INEXPERIENCE and ULTRA-LIBERAL AGENDA. In the end, Barack Hussein Obama just HIDES things. He hides his less than one term of Congressional inexperience. He hides his six year Illinois state senate record of voting to raise taxes FIVE TIMES. He was the only state senator to vote for the horrific practice of PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION. He was the only candidate to vote for providing increased welfare benefits to dangerous convicted felons upon release -- trying to force employers to hire them. He voted against the Death Penalty for dangerous habitual criminals. He also refused to vote on issues that might make him unappealing to national voters. </p> Obama is simply the choice of the uninformed masses who want "change." They are willing to embrace him -- when they don't even know where he stands on the issues. He is just an eloquent complainer and a cocky little dick. He HIDES his beliefs -- because he knows that they are unappealing and he can't get elected if they are known.

Translated: HE HAS NO EXPERIENCE.
<p>Sure, he was "opposed to this war from the beginning" (or so he claims). This inexperienced little prick was too busy masturbating into Tony Rezko's (aka "Rezko the Syrian's) mouth while making millons from his Chicago slums. This was when he "opposed" the war. <p>Obama is a JACKASS who has no chance of winning in November -- unless the media keeps hiding his beliefs while they HUMP HIS LEG like a liberal little hound that they are!</p> <p>I will not let the liberal media choose my President. I will call them out for failing to properly scrutinize their cum rag like they did to Hillary and McCain. Shame on you, journalists, for feeding us only the cum that you produced from your Obama-lust. You truly are beginning to smell like, uh, a rat. A democRAT.</p>

Since I don't listen to either (like you mindless libtards try to always interject), why don't you tell me. You people are sucking the cocks of Obama, CBS, ABC, and CNN. Is it true that they taste like hypocritical bull bigots?

Genuinely curious about this as I haven't caught much on the air about the speculation for the bottom of the 2 tickets.<p>
<p>Is Hillary considered the obvious choice as opposed to Edwards. (Though I heard something about Bill being on the ticket but that MUST be a gag right ?<p>
<p> And is Huckabee the southern, religious right/aborion "balance on McCain's ticket or does Romney still stand a chance. (I love Romney. He's just great value, pleeeease bring him back.)

Condi Rice or Mitt Romney as McCain's VP. I think that Obama will choose Osama bin Laden -- since they both respect each other's desire to have the US declare defeat in the Middle East. <p>McCain/Condi in 2008! </p> Condi is every liberal's worst nightmare! An extremely intelligent African American woman with a high intellect and PhD. She proved herself as a diplomat to Russia, Secretary of State and President of Stanford University!

If the Feb. 5th Super Tuesday primaries (where 20+ states including NY and CA voted) were a superhero, it would have been Superman. If the March 4th Super Tuesday II primaries (where only 4 states -- TX, OH, RI and VT) were a superhero, it would be "The Wonder Twins - Zan and Jayna."

Intriguing idea actually but I thought Condi Rice was already snapped up by the private sector and was taking a back seat from front line politics, but I could well be wrong about that.<p>
<p>If McCain seals the nomination mathematically tonight won't there be pressure to name his running mate ? He and Romney did make an effort to appears pallsy wallsy at that press conference but I think McCain still has a tiny bit of contempt for him through the gritted smiles. One things for sure I seriously doubt Giulliani is much of a runner.

It's a sad state of American affairs when a man may have to send out "talking points at the beginning of his campaign to "reject the publication of his middle name." Gee...I wonder why. Did you even bother to read my post?!<P>And I love how you think Obama is "hiding" behind his PUBLIC record. A record that anyone, with a few minutes to spare, can look up. If he becomes president, I guess he'll have to hide that as well, right?

Bro, I'm one of the many Reagan-era Republicans fed up by all the nightmarish bullshit George W., Cheney, Rove, and Condi Rice have done to the country I love.
<p>Insane rhetoric like yours is an absolute betrayal to the Republican Party -- the REAL one, not this Neocon fascist nonsense -- and if you'd rather keep being hateful and divisive, you best get the fuck out of my country now while you still can.</p>

Obama is just a whole lot of hot air mingled into his eloquent speeches. Yes, he is a GREAT speaker. But so is George Clooney. I wouldn't vote for Clooney either. <p>Barack Obama isn't hiding his "public" record -- the media is just not offering any sort of scrutiny. Our local metro paper just ran a poll that exposed that more than half of the Obama supporters don't even know where Obama stands on A SINGLE ISSUE! Then why the HELL are they voting for him? Is this the example of how foolish people can be?!? </p> Obama is just an INEXPERIENCED, LIBERAL COMPLAINER with a nice speaking ability. That's all -- nothing else! By November, the nation will realize how he is such a bad and unintelligent choice. His call for "change" will be replaced by McCain's call for EXPERIENCE WE CAN TRUST!

How do you become such an unquestioning mouthpiece of the Republican party? Did they grow you in pea pods or something? Yeah, Condi has done a wonderful job! The state of the world is the best it has ever been! Keep telling yourself that while you huddle in the corner in the fetal position. <p>
George W. Bush has singlehandedly seen the downfall of America as the only world power. The European Union, something that was laughed at and ridiculed at the time (especially the Euro) is now a huge economic force with each Euro worth $1.50 in American dollars (when they were issued they were worth less than one dollar). <p>
The EU has also managed to help democratize a Muslim country when the U.S. has failed miserably with the exact same goals in Iraq. Turkey has been bending over backwards to loosen restraints on free speech because they're so eager to join Europe's economic powerhouse. <p>
Meanwhile, the U.S. has borrowed so much money from China that they have tactical leverage against us. Bush claims he won't talk to dictators because that would encourage them but then acts like China's little lapdog. <p>
Keep on pushing fear and ignorance Chhhrrriiisssm, it's the only way you can continue to keep your head in the ground.

Why do you answer with jabs of hate? Is this the state of the Democratic Party today? They answer, "You must love Rush Limbaugh" or "You must want to have sex with Dick Cheney." <p>No, I just don't feel that a simple little complaining trial lawyer (Obama) with only three years of "experience" in Congress and 0 years of experience in either the military or foreign/domestic affairs is qualified enough to be the Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation on Earth. Give me a break! </p> <p> Can you honestly say that Obama is "qualified" for this job? What would you base such an opinion on -- his speaking ability? </p> <p>I honestly tremble for my nation when I realize how STUPID some voters can be! Then again, there were 12 stupid people (jurors) who voted to acquit O.J. Simpson. </p> <p>McCain/Condi in 2008! </p>'Nuff said.

Blacks don't hate Condi because she's a sellout, they just take a look at the world and wonder what good she has done. There are also tons of Blacks who, even if they believe in social programs, believe in constantly fixing and adjusting them so that they help people stand on their own two feet. <p>
Of course, in your racist mind all African Americans are a monolith who subscribe to your prejudice view of them. Why don't you actually talk some black people once and a while. At least you don't hide your racist attitudes like other Republicans.

So you are a McCain backer? Sorry, but you threw me for a loop. You do realize that McCain is a decent man don't you? He is a progressive and a REAL Republican. One of the old school Republicans who existed long before the evangelical crazies took over the Grand Old Party. I don't agree with real Republicans on a lot of issues, but I do respect them. I think the candidate you are looking for is at
www.mikehuckabee.com/
have a good day.

I already said I was a Reagan-era Republican, not a Democrat. I voted for Bush in 2000, but saw him for the lying, unconstitutional weasel he was and didn't repeat my mistake in 2004, for all the good it did.
<p>Drink the Kool-Aid all you want, pal. The time of you fascists ruining America is over.</p>

This is for all of you foolish Obama supporters who vote for him without even knowing where he stands on the issues. <p>He voted to raise taxes FIVE TIMES during his six years in the Illinois state senate. </p> <p>Obama was the only state senator to vote in support of PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION. </p> <p>Obama was the only state senator to vote against a requirement of having a medical doctor present during abortions (in case of failed abortions). He argued that the bill's language implied that a baby that survives an abortion and is born outside the womb should not be considered a "child" or else the state would have to offer due process to such babies. </p> <p>Barack Obama declared his support for sex education to minors as young as six years old in public schools -- including the preached acceptance of homosexuals in first grade story time. </p> <p>Barack Obama voted in support of "secret" abortions for children as young as 12 years old WITHOUT parental knowledge or consent. These children would simply leave school, have an abortion, and return to school -- without their parents ever finding out. </p> <p>Barack Obama acknowledges a need to raise taxes in the United States -- for families making $60K or more a year. This is $30K for either parent. He also plans on ending tax breaks as a means to fund his desired increases in welfare. </p> <p>Obama voted against capital punishment for habitual, violent rapists and murderers. He claimed that this would "unfairly target African Americans."</p> <p>Obama voted "present" (neither YES or NO) more than any other state senator in Illinois history. Why? He didn't want to vote on issues that would cause him to lose support if he ever ran for the Senate or President. </p> <p>Obama was the only state senator who voted to keep a 50 cents per gallon gasoline tax. Illinois lawmakers wanted to repeal the tax during summer and winter months in order to save money for consumers. Obama said that he worried that cheaper gas would add to "global warming." </p> This list could go on and on. IS THIS THE MAN YOU WANT TO VOTE FOR? Do you want an ultra-liberal inexperienced man -- just because he can speak well?

But that didn't stop Rove and his chums swiftboating Kerry and losing the GOP forever the right to try for the "high ground" on the war hero angle.<p>
<p>Besides there is no training wheels for the Big Chair. Running a state isn't the same, being a senator isn't the same, even being in the cabinet or chief of staff, which might even give you a fairly close look at the job, isn't the same. No-one truly knows what a President will be like until he sits in the Oval office. Speculation is just that, speculation.<p>
<p>Hillary, Obama and McCain all have a window of opportunity to put their stamp on the White House but they will all constrained by the same economy and same foreign policy headaches on day one and they will all surround themselves with the best advisors they can find.

Illiterate? No, I am a PhD candidate in Public Policy and Administration at George Washington University. I made it -- even as an African American who refused to acknowledge my race on the basis of ethics. <p>I suppose that little minded liberals like yourself are shocked that a black man can make it without the bones thrown to us by the Democratic Party? </p> <p>I have been called Uncle Tom, a "sell out" and a "coconut" -- all because I don't buy into the lies told by the Democratic Party and their black reps (like Sharpton, Braun, and Jackson). Who is the real "Uncle Tom?"</p> Why not ask your good ol' buddy Barack?

...by the media. I suppose that their leg humping is about to finish? <p>Check it out: </p> <p>http:// www.nydailynews. com/news/politics/2008/03/ 04/ 2008-03-04_angry_barack_obama_bombarded_by_media . html </p> <p>(Delete the spaces)</p>

I mean, you must be because you keep calling anyone that reaches out across party lines a liberal and Reagan did that in landslide elections.
<p>Hunh. Who knew that George Washington University was giving out PhDs in gumball machines these days?</p>

canadian gov was in an uproar about the memo, with ministers screaming for heads as someone decided to get involved with the american election...which is against the law...and according to the gov, the memo is not true...the rezko deal is much ado about nothing....hillary has thrown out everything but the kitchen sink here...im pretty disgusted with the clintons

When did you perceive that a candidate that reaches across party lines is a liberal? Are you MENTAL? <p>And for your "knowledge," I have worked hard on my education. I come from a poor family in Texas. I survived as an undergrad on scholarships, grants and student loans. But I did it myself -- without the bones of the Democratic Party. </p> I might wonder since you mock my education: What is your educational background? I encourage you to educate yourself -- and you'll realize how terrible a choice Obama is.

<p>If this is the type of candidate that you want to vote for, then by all means, vote for Obama. I simply cannot bring myself to support a typical old-fashioned liberal like Obama – even if he can speak well. His terrifying lack of experience (less than 3 years in Congress) is enough to cause terrorists like Osama bin Laden and Hugo Chavez to dance with glee. </p>
<p>He voted to raise taxes FIVE TIMES during his six years in the Illinois state senate. </p>
<p>Obama was the only state senator to vote in support of PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION. </p>
<p>Obama was the only state senator to vote against a requirement of having a medical doctor present during abortions (in case of failed abortions). He argued that the bill's language implied that a baby that survives an abortion and is born outside the womb should not be considered a "child" or else the state would have to offer due process to such babies. </p>
<p>Barack Obama declared his support for sex education to minors as young as six years old in public schools -- including the preached acceptance of homosexuals in first grade story time. </p>
<p>Barack Obama voted in support of "secret" abortions for children as young as 12 years old WITHOUT parental knowledge or consent. These children would simply leave school, have an abortion, and return to school -- without their parents ever finding out. </p>
<p>Barack Obama acknowledges a need to raise taxes in the United States -- for families making $60K or more a year. This is $30K for either parent. He also plans on ending tax breaks as a means to fund his desired increases in welfare. </p>
<p>Obama voted against capital punishment for habitual, violent rapists and murderers. He claimed that this would "unfairly target African Americans." </p>
<p>Obama voted "present" (neither YES or NO) more than any other state senator in Illinois history. Why? He didn't want to vote on issues that would cause him to lose support if he ever ran for the Senate or President. </p>
<p>Obama was the only state senator who voted to keep a 50 cents per gallon gasoline tax. Illinois lawmakers wanted to repeal the tax during summer and winter months in order to save money for consumers. Obama said that he worried that cheaper gas would add to "global warming." </p>
<p>This list could go on and on. IS THIS THE MAN YOU WANT TO VOTE FOR? Do you want an ultra-liberal inexperienced man -- just because he can speak well? </p> <p>My vote? It is going to Senator John McCain. McCain has over 22 years experience in the military (with over 5 as a prisoner of war) and over 25 years in the Legislature. He is an honest man who was tortured for his country. He didn't honor his country with nice speeches that complained about the status quo. McCain honored it with a lifetime of service. </p> <p> Ever wonder why McCain cannot lift his arms above his head? He was tortured for not telling government secrets by the Communists. Google his story, and you'll quickly know why he is the only candidate QUALIFIED for the office of Commander-in-Chief! </p> <p>McCain/Condi in 2008!</p>

Quote: "His terrifying lack of experience (less than 3 years in Congress) is enough to cause terrorists like Osama bin Laden and Hugo Chavez to dance with glee."<P>As opposed to George Bush who had no experience in Congress and whose policies (with the assistance of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al) have Bin Laden and Chavez swimming in golden pools of popular anti-American sentiment.<P>Here's my point: if you want to run a list of Republican Party talking points that specify the reasons why you think Obama shouldn't be president, that's fine. It makes perfect electoral/political sense to do so. However, if you want to say that he's unqualified because his middle-name is "Hussein" (and we all know why folks like you try to make that an issue), then you need to take a long look in the mirror and try to find your soul.

McCains USP always seemed to be he was a fairly decent guy. (albiet in comparison to the rabid NeoCon attack dogs that killed his last chance)<p>
<p>So does anyone think a Rush Limbaugh/O Reilly style scareathon smearfest will fly this time ? I think it would be as successful and votewinning as re-running Bush/Cheney would be myself.

Republican talking points? Is that your rebuttal for everything? <p>George W. Bush spent two terms as governor of the second largest state in the United States -- one whose economy and population is larger than all but a handful of nations. He also served a short stint in the Air National Guard. While I am not a big GWB fan, he did a pretty good job in Texas. He was a decent president -- until Democrats started vilifying and demonizing him in 2004. </p> Obama? He served less than a year in Congress before declaring his intentions to run for the office of the President. Compare this with John F. Kennedy (our youngest elected president) who served 14 years in Congress and a stint in the military. </p> <p>Obama has no military experience (not even as a draft dodger). He has no business experience. He has no foreign or domestic policy experience. He has spent less than a single term in Congress. And this is the best candidate that the Democrats could produce? </p> Some in this talkback even ADMITTED that they were voting for Barack Hussein Obama without even knowing where he stood on the issues! Is this "smart voting?"

All of which are why I would vote for Obama rather than McCain. <p>
You fail to mention that the "secret" abortions are for children who are the victims of rape or incest (which in many cases the father is the victim). <p>
My public school had sex education in fifth grade. It was "sex" as in gender and the development of the fetus. It did not involve teaching kids about condoms and other knowledge that was taught later on in middle school. This is not a traumatic or harmful for kids to learn about. In fact, they're going to learn much of it on the playground, the information might as well be accurate. <p>
I don't know where you're getting the raising taxes for families over $60 thousand. I've heard him say he will raise taxes for people making over $200 (it might have been $250) but the number you just gave out seems pretty random. <p>
I think the death penalty is barbaric. Unlike most Christians I actually believe in redemption, and while there are people who should never be let free, the government should not be in the position of killing people who are in no position to hurt others. <p>
Wold I vote for an ultra-liberal? Hell, yes I would! After eight years or unnecessary war and corporate handouts (which number far more than the welfare handouts you and Anchorite complain about), I'm ready for an ultra-liberal.

you elect a Democrat" argument. If there is one thing the terrorists love the most, it's George W. Bush. We had Osama on the fence in Afghanistan but Bush refused to send in more troops to finish the job because he had decided he wanted to attack Iraq, a country that posed no threat to us. <p>
Since Iraq terrorist attacks have actually increased. It was on George W.'s watch that we were attacked on 9/11 despite the "Bin Laden Determined to Attack the U.S." warnings. Shortly after 9/11 we were attacked again by anthrax through the mail, the perpetrator of which (much like the perpetrator of 9/11) has never been caught. <p>
I guarantee you that Bin Laden thanks Allah everyday for George W.'s two terms in the White House. <p>
If we elect McCain, a man I disagree with but used to respect, then we're in for more bungling in the middle east and increased dominance of Iran. His support for the war in Iraq has shown that he does not have the right strategy to protect the U.S.

Quote: "Republican talking points? Is that your rebuttal for everything?"<P>Yes, Republican talking points. That's what you would call your laundry list of items that the Republican party could/should/will use in a head-to-head debate with Barack. If I were a political strategist, those are the types of things I would suggest they use if they want to debate him on the issues and his record.<P>Not his middle-name.<P>Savvy?

The "secret" abortions that Obama endorsed weren't just for victims of rape or incest (which number relatively few). They were as a source of birth control. Parents (neither Mom nor Dad) would even know about the abortion -- let alone be required to approve it. Would you want this to happen to your 11 year old little girl? <p>During his six years in the Illinois state senate, Obama supported the teaching of sex education to 1st graders -- including indoctrinating children (again, without parental consent) about the "normalcy" of homosexual relationships and "married" homosexual couples. This is a bit different than watching "Am I Normal?" in the 5th grade. This is a forced governmental indoctrination of our children.</p> <p>The $60K number is the figure used when he voted to raise taxes in Illinois FIVE TIMES. The $60K number is also misleading, because it represented the "family income." If you were single and made $30K a year, your taxes went up. </p> <p>Obama does not support the death penalty. Neither do I. But if it is the law of the land (like abortion), he is obliged to honor it. He tried to make it illegal -- even against habitually violent rapists and murderers. Why is it that he tries to make capital punishment illegal but continue to make abortion commendable? He was the ONLY person to vote for the continuation of PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION, in which a full-term baby is removed from the womb backward (with only an inch of his head remaining in the womb). The skull of the child is then crushed. Yet he thinks that capital punishment is inhumane? </p> <p>More than anything, I am troubled by the fact that many people embrace an inexperienced, less-than-one-term congressman -- without knowing where he stands on the issues. He may be a nice little liberal man, but he is entirely unqualified to the Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation on Earth. </p>

obama has talked about raising taxes on those who make over 200k and on corporations...not sure where you are getting the 60k number...but you go vote for mccain...and and the 20 percent who still think that the repugs have done a good job

I'm now a "neocon?" <p>What does that make you -- a "NeoHippie?"</p>
<p>Hmmm...perhaps that is Obama's problem? He is an inexperienced, unqualified NEO-HIPPIE who made a fortune as a trial lawyer representing "Rezko the Syrian" and his Chicago slums. </p>

Thanks and I understand the points you are trying to make.<P>Now, some of the statements made by Obama regarding Pakistan and Iraq (especially the one regarding military action after a unilateral withdrawal) are rather interesting. Conversely, one could say that they are statements which (in essence) reflect the current policies in play today.

...was to find an unqualified, inexperienced trial lawyer as their choice for the Presidency! <p> Obama's only virtue is his speaking ability -- which he uses to disguise his ultra-liberal philosophy. It is all a bit tragic, don't ya think? </p> At least he is clear that he will declare SURRENDER! in the Middle East -- just when the peacekeeping operations of the US, British and Australian forces are winning. Osama must be so proud!

with young women who receive an abortion through a court order. You forget to mention the part where the judge has to sign off on it. I also think you make it sound far more permissive than it really is. The fact is that kids who shouldn't be having sex are having sex. Sex education should be the first priority, and if that does not work, then abortion should remain an option. Again, I have no problem with this because I don't believe a fetus is a sentient human being. Those who do believe a fetus is a life need to talk to their family and community and stop using the government to step on other people's rights. <p>
The partial birth abortion ban was a terrible law because it did not make exceptions for the health of the mother. I completely agree that the law shouldn't have been passed or passed in a different form. <p>
As far as Barack's experience goes, let us take the argument that Bush had plenty of experience before he entered office. Look at what we have now: an endless war, a crippled economy, the diminishing of American power, the perpetrator of the worst civilian attack on U.S. soil still at large. Experience means nothing without the intellect to back it up. <p>
And with that I think I will take ChestBumpingFatKids advice and go clean up my apartment.

Almost no-one will now admit to being a Neo-Con thanks to Georgie boy and chums astonishing Presidency.<p>
<p>Course that's not to say there aren't any. Just that if Liberal were some sort of term of abuse it has now been superceded by NeoCon so they are all "reformed" Goldwaters or born again Reaganites nowadays out of shame and fear of the NeoCon label.

...against allowing health insurance to cover prenatal surgery to protect an unborn child. While working both as a trial lawyer and in the Illinois state senate, Obama reasoned that declaring an unborn baby to be a "child" would offer legal protection of a fetus. This, he felt, could be eventually extended to protect babies from an abortion. </p> <p> So Obama voted against extending health insurance to cover unborn children, against medical doctors in abortion clinics to protect children living after botched abortions, and from considering legal causes of unborn children injured by violent criminals. <p>Yet he opposes the death penalty because it is "inhumane." </p>

...and I am unashamed! <p>Why should I be ashamed of my heartfelt beliefs in front of a bunch of neo-hippies?</p> <p>I do, however, hurt for my children when they see me called a "coconut" or "Uncle Tom" for being both an African-American and a conservative. It is disheartening to see people resort to such mindless bigotry for voting with a conscience. </p> <p>Yet I am not the only conservative African American. The 2006 General Social Survey (GSS) showed that African Americans are far more conservative in regard to most issues than the Democrats or the media would have you believe. They just don't know it yet. </p> <p>With the proper time and exposure, you will witness a mass exodus of minorities away from the false promises and offered bones of the liberal leadership of the Democratic Party. </p> Mark my words: A mass exodus is coming in which the minorities of this nation realize that the Democratic Party is still the same old party of Jim Crowe, except far more liberal and with less appealing bones to exchange for votes. We are a people of tradition, and cultural and religious values. These values are a stark contrast from the ultra-liberalism of Nancy Pelosi's Democratic Party. </p> <p>I think that we will be surprised by the positive response that McCain will receive in November from African Americans and Hispanics. Bush received 10% of the AA vote in 2004. I suspect that McCain will do even better.

Odd ? Bush is now admitting the inevitable with his aquiesance to the Iraqi Presidents actions and after nearly 5 years is now trying to bring Iran into the tent but when Obama proposes talks it's some kind of terrorist appeasement ????<p>
<p>Pakistan is anything but united. Bhutto's assassination proved that. Musharraf was the Dictatorship Bush didn't want to piss off too much so it degenerated into the haven for Al-Qaeda in the Northwest fontier that it now is. Obama was talking about a limited air-strike against Bin Laden (remember him?)if actionable intelligence was recieved not an invasion.<p>
<p>Bush walks hand in hand tripping through the daisies with the terrorism funder in chief and Wahabi sponsor King of Suadi Arabia so leave the pissing off of Dictators rhetoric for those who don't know about the double standards.

Which is a common folly of those whose passion for or against a particular issue or in this case, candidate gets the best of them. To whit: Your statement about the Parental rights being ignored if as in your example, an eleven year-old girl was given an abortion against her parents wishes. First of all, any parent of an eleven year old that becomes pregnant, if that pregnancy was not the result of a rape, has in my mind forfeited the right to be called a 'parent'. Would you really want YOUR eleven year old to undergo chiildbirth? To be a parent of a child when she is but a child herself? Most of your arguments against Obama, touch on the abortion issue, and they are powerful ones, but they are narrow ones as well. Your use of his Middle name, which is becoming comically irrelevant as the far right wing keeps hammering it home, was even denounced by Karl Rove. By all means, please continue to use it though to highlight your arguments, because if that is the best you can do, which is to use a mans middle name, to argue that he would not be a good president, well that is a very telling argument to your own judgement.

Do you think the minority vote was enhanced by the magnificent stumping of Romney for instance ?<p>
<p>I feel sorry for you if you have been abused by others in the way you have described (but not here unless I have missed anyone throwing those words at you) It explains much to be honest and who wouldn't have a chip on their shoulder if that is the abuse you have to deal with day in day out. If McCain goes into this election expounding the values on immigration he was castigated for in the debates he may well get some favourable votes amongst minorities. But he'll have to say exactly what his immigration policy is and perhaps the far right of the GOP aren't quite ready for that kind of "religion" front and centre in an election just yet.<p>
<p>BTW in what way is OBama or Hillary any more or less religious than McCain or the GOP ? Sure they may not be your particular brand of religion but it's pretty clear they are middle of the road churchgoers. (Lets be honest though. If it ever really becomes a I love God more than you contest, so long Democracy)

I think the point G100 was trying to make was that the term NEOCON has become unpopular because of the association with Bush/Cheney.
<p>
What a great opportunity for you to declare that you're "unashamed" to be called a conservative. How very clever! The bullying Liberals are trying to make you "ashamed" to be "conservative"! How awful for you!
<p>
You seem so well informed on so many other topics, how is it that you're so completely ignorant of the difference between a Conservative and a Neocon?

Yes, he advocated bombing in Pakistan, in the mountains, if Al qaida were present. And guess what? That is EXACTLY what happened last week when GWB authorized the bombing in Pakistan against Al Qaida. I may not agree with GWB on a lot of things, but going after Al Qaida wherever they may be, is the prerogative of the President of the most powerful nation on the planet.

Quite right samsquanch as Conservative can easily mean the Goldwater Brand or even a light Reaganite rand or indeed anything you choose to prefix it with. Hence Neo - Conservative. It's a moveable feast. The rise and fall of the Neo-cons is a spectacular example of the Bush/Cheney phenomenon.

Asshat...great word. I like assbag, too.
Hey cccchri/anchorite, your entitled to your opinions but not your own facts.
Obama did say he would attack Al Quaida in Pakistan even without the permission of the Pakistani government...guess what, Bush did just that last week. In fact, they claimed that they took out a top terrorist target. It's been our nations stated policy since Bill bloody Clinton was president.
As for experience...
Our least experienced president...bet you didn't know this. Abe Asshat Lincoln. Our first republican and without arguement our best president ever.
Of course, idiots like you would have voted for the other guy.
Fuckhats is what you are.

The difference between "neocon" and "conservative" is relative. Democrats have turned "neocon" into a bad word, as they have worked tirelessly to vilify and demonize anyone who doesn't support them. This is their practice, isn't it? <p>If you had done your homework, you would have realized that the term is derived from a liberal socialist (Michael Harrington) who used the term in a vague sense. It has been the Democratic Party who has used the term ever since. It has become a response to the ill-feelings of the word "liberal." </p> <p>Those "bullying liberals" who frequent the Internet have never made me feel ashamed personally. I only feel shame that there are so many uninformed citizens in this great nation who are dumb enough to vote for a candidate based upon his speaking ability rather than the substance of his causes. A recent Washington Post poll showed that most Obama supporters (more than 60%) can't even name a single issue upon which he stands! Other than his opposition to the peacekeeping operations in Iraq (which he "opposes" but offers no real solution to), how many Democrats know him? </p> <p>The media is FINALLY starting to scrutinize this candidate -- instead of humping his leg like a dog in heat. Check this out: </p> <p> http:// www.washingtonpost. com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03 /03/AR2008030302769_pf. html </p> Remember to remove the spaces in thisi url. It seems that the media's love fest for Obama is coming to an end -- and they have realized that this inexperienced, unqualified candidate has pulled the wool over the eyes of quite a few people. And they thought that his middle name ("Hussein") was the only thing that he was hiding!

Socialism, has been proven time and time again, to be a false utopia. Lets forget the extreme version of socialism - Marxism and Communism, and just focus on what the so-called Social Democracies have done. Primarily, we are talking about Central America, and the flavor of the social month, Venezuela. Do you really want a pseudo dictator like Chavez in power in the United States? Socialism,where the 'community' own the resources read:where those in power in the gov't, control the resources of the state, fails for several glaring reasons. Without competition, there is no incentive to achieve. There is no incentive to create. There is no incentive to innovate. Things stagnate. Yes, some socialists programs can have limited benefits - such as health care, but even there, you wind-up with a one size fits all model.

Yes, Abe Lincoln was less experienced than most other presidents. Lincoln, that great Republican, served for four full terms in the state legislature before being elected twice as a Congressman. He was also successfully elected twice as a Republican presidential candidate.</p> <p>Barack Hussein Obama?</p>Obama was a trial lawyer making millions representing Tony Rezko ("Rezko the Syrian") and his Chicago slums. He served in the Illinois state senate (representing Chicago) proving himself to be the most liberal member. He also holds a state record for failing to vote more than any other state legislator. </p> <p>Barack Obama has never served in the military. He never served in a field of foreign/domestic policy. Yet he wants to immediately "surrender" in the peacekeeping operations in Iraq, while also promising to meet with world leaders who are considered "enemies of the state" (like the presidents of Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Syria, etc....). </p> <p>Is it wise to elect an unqualified and inexperienced man like Barack Hussein Obama to such an important office? </p> <p>Our other choice is Senator John Sydney McCain III. </p> <p>Senator McCain spent over 20 years as a disguished military officer -- with over 5 years served as a prisoner of war. He was tortured during that time -- being shot, stabbed, and "crushed" as his shoulders were snapped multiple times. Yet he served willingly out of love for this country. Unlike Michelle Obama, Senator McCain has always loved and always been proud of this nation and what it stands for. </p> <p>McCain went on to serve as an advocate representing Native Americans and served over 25 years in Congress (as a Representative and Senator). He has visited with leaders around the world who love democracy. </p> This is a sharp contrast with the gross inexperience and lack of qualifications of Barack Obama. In my opinion, Senator McCain is the ONLY SAFE CHOICE for America!

You may be a Lincoln fan, but you can hardly say he is without argument our best president when a good third of the country consider him one of the most evil presidents of all time. He ripped the constitution a new asshole and started a civil war that led to the loss of over 600,000 lives. There's your argument. And no, it wasn't over slavery so don't go there. People like the image of Lincoln but won't take the time to research the reality and the same is true of today's candidates. The media is in charge of peoples' opinions. People quote the MSM verbatim all the time without any regard for past lies and distortions. This country is fucked all to hell and anyone who doesn't get that now, sure as hell will get it a year from now. This was our last chance to turn things around and instead we're stuck with Hillary/McCain/Obama. Plenty of blame to go around for that one but in becoming a delegate and voting my conscience, I can be secure in the knowledge that I did all that I can. I guess it's on to plan B.

Where did you get that number from? There are over 300 million in this country. And 1/3 of that is 100 million. That aint chicken feed. If that was really the case, there would never be a monument, let alone the most popular monument, to a man when 1/3 of a country can't stand him! Get your facts straight before you start expousing such nonsense.

Oh man you REALLY can't pretend to have any kind of substantive politics and keep up with the Hussein bullshit. It's BEYOND lame it absolutely STINKS of desperation and is virtually telling everyone Obama frightens some Conservatives to death if they are reduced to such kendergarden tactics.<p>
<p>Look up. See up there where no-one else gives a shit what someone's middle name is ? That's called the Moral High Ground and if the high profile fraud & confused sexuality of some Republicans hadn't already lost the GOP most of it then the continued attempts to attack Barack because of what his parents chose to christen him will. If the GOP or McCain tries to make such a pathetic irrelevance an actual campaign issue they will get crushed & ridiculed. Guaranteed.

Sorry that you feel this way, but you really don't know me very well. <p>I supported Al Gore in 2000. I thought that Gore was a better choice than Bush, even though I was not pleased with Gore as a candidate. He was, as you know, not a very honest fellow. In the end, I was actually please that he lost. He was far too self-consumed to have responded well to the events of 9/11. Even most Democrats at the time approved of the way Bush handled the situation. </p> <p>I'm certainly not a huge fan of every Bush decision. I applaud his conservatism, but I never cared much for the rush to war in Iraq. I felt then, as I feel now, that the war was done too quickly. However, I don't buy into the Democrats' stupid rhetoric that the war was about anything other than the claims and potential of Saddam Hussein to develop WMDs. While no WMDs were found (thank God), we can only imagine what would have happened if they were developed. In his 60 Minutes interview, the chief interrogator of Saddam Hussein stated that Iraq did try to mislead the world concerning the existance and extent of such weapons. This coincides with the statements of Colin Powell, and the intelligence of the CIA, Scotland Yard, and Israeli and Russian intelligence. </p> <p>Regardless, I am a conservative. In addition, I am convinced that Barack Hussein Obama is a terrible choice for Commander-in-Chief! He is inexperienced in the areas that would cause me even to consider him as a viable candidate. He lacks experience in diplomacy, military science and national security. These are important in this hour of history. </p> <p> In addition, Obama is a liberal in the truest sense of the word. He was voted the most liberal member of Congress just last year. But even after less than a single year in Congress, he already had announced his candidacy for the office of the President in 2008. There has always been a problem, in my mind, with a man or woman who so desperately seeks power but will not prove himself in the small things. </p> If Obama wants to be our Commander-in-Chief, then let him prove himself as a viable leader in the Senate. So far, he hardly has shown up to vote -- because he has been running for the Presidency since getting elected! If, after some years, Obama proves himself a fair and capable leader -- then perhaps I would reconsider. But right now? </p> He is still just an untested, inexperience, unqualified liberal who happens to have a good speaking ability.

do we judge the merit of a candidate against his military record? god forbid we let anyone in office who might have chosen NOT to serve in a military that has become the right hand of a backwards imperialist. now obviously, obama would not have served under bush. but what the fuck?! i just don't understand why everyone thinks we need to have a military man in office...

Before you compare Scandinavia, with the United Staes, and say that Socialism is better, talk to people who actually live under social democracies. They want to come here!You think you have high taxes now, well, what would you say if I told you that Scandinavia has the highest tax rate in Europe? Far, far higher than that in the U.S. In very small, closed societeies, socialism can work. Not in the greatest ecomomic engine the world has ever seen -U.S. I am not saying capitalism is the best system, but it is far superior in our version than any socialist experiment.

The recent elections clearly show that the people don't want hardliners like Musharaff or Al Qaeda (one of which is responsible for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. <p>
An American attack in sovereign Pakistan without their explicit consent is tantamount to repeating the mistake made in Iraq - emboldening extremists. So what we have to do is (seriously, and not just by giving lip service) support real democracy in Pakistan, and work with them to secure their country and root out the terrorists. <p>
As for drilling in Alaska. Okay, Alaska has enough oil to supply the US (if it were the sole source) for ... 1 year. And the time, energy and investment to get that oil out is not only cost ineffective, it is better used to develop true alternative energy resources. Drilling for more oil is just a ridiculous waste of time and money. We need a long-term solution that doesn't factor in the short-term profits of the oil companies. Come the fuck on with this already.

It's true his middle name is Sydney ! That's the most populous state in Australia and McCain sounds suspiciously like a Scottish name.<p>
<p>Don't you see what that means ????? American's will be force fed Haggis through Didgeriedoos while listening to Crowded house 24/7 and watching soccer !<p>Is that what you want ?? John Sydney McCain selling America to burgeoning AustralioScottish financial interests with a Kangaroo on every streetcorner and the Great Lakes replaced by Lochs !!! This furriner means to sell you out ! You have been warned !

And duck arguments that you can not counter. To whit: My counter to your Eleven year old girl argument. But lets focus on your latest:You say you did not care for the war, but you think the Dems where wrong to say it was about anything other than WMD? Really? well, try this on for size Mr. Conservative. At the same time that we invaded Iraq, North Korea was not only trying to produce WMD, but they were telling the WORLD that they were trying to produce WMD! Why in heavens name did we not invade them? They were and still are far more dangerous. Because they wanted to SELL that technology to the very terrorists that we are trying to kill. So, if Mr. Bush really did want to stop WMD as you assert, then why not go to the true source? The answer is that he wanted to invade Iraq -as has been asserted by former members of his own cabinet, even before he assumed office. Oh, yes, please keep on using Obama's middle name. It just makes your arguments sound even more childish.

Politalk or something like that, where the AICN political guy (i vote Monki the "videogame" guy of AICN, who needs something else to do), goes around to interviews with political heads and brings back info and speculation. Heck he can even meld his videogame stuff together, like take shots of playing his DS in front of a White House press conference. Even ask them on their opinions on the Wii vs. 360 vs. PS3 wars.

Believe it or not, obesity is beginning to hit some European countries as well, and ask Canada about school shootings. You're just throwing in problems now. Our system is flawed, what with the economy, health insurance, obesity, too many ninjas, not enough pirates, Will Ferrel sports comedies, and lack of public Fleshlight funding. Some of these things are not exactly the fault of "the system". Tell me, my friend, do you live in Europe? Are you a social scientist? How old are you, what is your occupation, if you don't mind me asking?

Show me a system that works better, and i will embrace it. It is very easy to throw stones - Communism did that for seventy years, and look what happened to it? Socialism does not work on large scale economies, because it destroys the incentive to innovate. Yes, it has some good, I will be the forst to admit that in some limited instances a socialist policy can be beneficial. But the common canard that health care will be improved by socialism is disproven when you closely examine the syetms in thise countries such as Canada. Let me ask a simple question: If your life was on the line, are you planning on flying to Canada for health care, or staying the the US where we have the best in the world? And why is it the best? Because it is competitive.

Can you give me a link to the statistics of how many English children the marines have held at gunpoint and forcefed Big Macs to? Is it a lot? Just admit you have action figures of Michael Moore and Super-Size Me bedsheets and we can all walk away.

Read this: The effect of this overriding focus on equality is evident in some prominent WHO studies. The organization’s World Health Report 2000, for instance, reported the absurd statistic that the United States ranks thirty-seventh in national performance among the world’s 191 “health systems”—placing America well behind such celebrated centers of medicine as Colombia, Morocco, and Oman. Obviously, no sensible person takes such figures seriously. The WHO can indulge in its fantasy only because of its own ideological commitments. The criteria for the health-systems ranking, devised by something called the “WHO Global Program on Evidence for Health Policy,” were primarily measures of political egalitarianism. They included “distribution of health” and “distribution of financing”—criteria which measure inequalities, but have nothing at all to do with the absolute quality of healthcare. Another WHO standard is “fairness of financial contribution.” “Colombia,” explains the report, “achieved top rank because someone with a low income might pay the equivalent of $1 per year for healthcare, while a high-income individual pays $7.6.” Predictably, the report insists that “ultimate responsibility for the performance of a country’s health system lies with government” and dismisses market-based approaches as “the worst possible way to determine who gets which health services.” More grandly, it declares that the “careful and responsible management of the well being of the population is the very essence of good government.”
We were 37th in 2000, and still 37? Get real.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/3/menashi.htm

I would be curious to hear what the long term plans are regarding entitlements. They make up the bulk of our budget every year making the war look rather small by comparison and they're only going to get more expensive as our population grows older. This is going to be a huge problem if we're not careful and would like to know what regulations and economic growth can be used to deal with this.

You know, your constant repeating of Obama's middle name is just childish, man. <p>
And what did Bush accomplish prior to being President? He fucking laughed at a mentally ill woman before her execution. The guy's a nut, which clearly explains the predicament we're in. <p>

<p>Well toadkillerdog, I pulled that number out of my ass. All I know is that Lincoln is a hero when you live in the Northeast and West Coast, but not so much in the rest. He's hated in the south and I've yet to find any fans in Colorado. My point is, he's far from universally loved and as far as past presidents go, only Nixon comes close to inspiring the level of hatred that Lincoln does in this country. You wouldn't know it from watching the mainstream media, but it's quite apparent in the real world. I'm quite active in the local political scene and the subject comes up a lot.</p>
<p>As for you Mr. Nice Gaius, of course Lincoln started the war, who else? The south had every right to secede. Lincoln fought to "preserve the union" but since each state had joined that union voluntarily, they also had the right to leave it. We were founded on secession and the purpose of the constitution was to restrict the federal government, not to give them power over us. Instead, that psycho decided to give us a war which took 200 times the number of lives lost on 9/11. And this is back when we were a much smaller country.</p>

Abe Lincoln was a good old man <br>
He jumped out the window <br>
With a frying pan <br>
Excuse me ma'am <br>
I'm Superman <br>
If I die, bury me <br>
Hang my bones <br>
On the cherry tree <br>
And if they grow <br>
Let me know <br>
I'll be listening <br>
On the radio <br>

While I'm in no way defending that fuck Bush, Clinton pulled a similar stunt when he was running. He rushed back to Arkansas to oversee the death of a mentally retarded man that even the warden and the guards were against. He didn't even understand he was being executed and was helping them with the needle, he was so messed up (I got this from a Hitchens book for whatever that's worth). But as a liberal, he wanted to appear tough on the death penalty so that was that. There is simply no difference between the Bush's and the Clinton's of the world. The differences are all in the convenient perceptions of their followers. They only see the good in their guy and the bad in the other. Objectively speaking, they all do the same shit.

you don't think access to healthcare is a part of quality of healthcare? If people are dying merely because they are uninsured, then that means the healthcare system is not working. <p>
You're "free market" system (and I use that term in quotation marks because no one believes in it absolutely) is not effective when there's no money to be made. There's very little money to be made in insuring the poor and lower middle class so they get left behind. You're faulting the World Health Organization because they look at the entire population of the country instead of just looking at a portion of the country? In other words, you would rather have the report give an incomplete view of America's populace? That makes little sense, especially when the report is comparing our country to others who insure everyone. <p>
You're "free market" ideas also don't seem to be doing much for the U.S. these days. The EU's currency (made up of a bunch of socialist countries by the way) is worth more than the U.S. dollar and countries are beginning to invest in Europe rather than the U.S. <p>
Let's look at Iraq. We outsourced rebuilding Iraq to private organizations and it was a mess. Out of the seven largest reconstruction projects only two are still working. That's capitalism for you. The same thing that makes capitalism efficient (monetary incentives) can also make it inefficient if there are no consequences for doing a poor job. In today's market place CEO's make so much money with ridiculous severance packages that there are no consequences for when they fail.

I'll check out that Bill story. If true, I've lost a lot of respect for him. And Hillary has, in recent weeks, shown herself to be quite the Washington operator. You can't tell me she's not aware the dirty tricks her campaigners are doing. <p>
That's why I'm going for Obama. Betweem John "Literally In Bed With The Lobbyist" McCain and Hillary, the choice is clear: Obama.

I too voted for Obama in the Ohio primary, albeit with an absentee ballot several weeks ago. The man has already shown he has far more foresight than the vast majority of Washington by being against the war from the beginning. His healthcare plan is also a step in the right direction. And just because he's well spoken that's supposed to be a bad thing?

Dude, you have zero credibility. You can not just 'pull numbers out of your ass' because that is the only way to support your specious arguments. I do not know what part of Colo. You live in, but perhaps it is a commune for people who still believe the Civil war was unjust. Because the REST of the country most assuredly does not hold that belief. You are correct that secession was not illegal in 1861. But the majority of the country fought to preserve what a minority wanted to destroy. Does that sound at all familiar?

when Obama set an American flag on fire, pissed on it, and then grabbed a copy of The Constitution, cut a hole in it, put his dick through the hole, and then fucked his wife? Or when he hijacked one of the planes on September 11th, and parachuted out of the plane when it was about to hit the World Trade Center? Or what about the time Obama nailed Jesus to a cross for claiming to be the son of God? <p>True story.

Like I said, it was from a Hitchen's book, which gave it credibility to me at the time (since he was considered a liberal), but after he started cheerleading Bush's war, I find him hard to trust. In any case, this was the book:http://tinyurl.com/2d2x42 . And you can see in the Amazon description/review a brief account of that story.

Maybe you were not following the entire thread, so I will give you a pass. But I never said i was against universal healthcare, or providing care to the uninsured, or poor. Far from it. I APPLAUD any effort that will do so. The context of the WHO report that was cited as a reason to chose Canada over the U.S. was the reason why I posted the argument that the WHO's so called fact finding was and is politically motivated, and has zero to do with the actual QUALITY of health care that can be found in the U.S. That was the argument in that thread.

The number was rough and from anecdotal evidence. But I have lived all over the country and judging by your disbelief, I'm guessing that you haven't. It's the whole red state/blue state divide I guess. In any case, the number isn't relevant. The point is that a great many people don't agree with you so Lincoln's greatness is hardly uncontested. Even NPR points out how the original 13th amendment that Lincoln was trying to get past was about guaranteeing the rights of slave owners. Lincoln also said that if he could preserve the union without freeing the slaves, he would have. People put him on a pedestal for all the wrong reasons. Oh yeah, and Ghandi slept naked with little girls and hated black people. Mother Teresa was a kook who believed that people should suffer to be brought closer to God. All of our "saints",secular and otherwise, were quite dirty to anyone who does a little reading.

What do you think a Hellfire missile, is a fancy bullet? It is a bomb, a tactical guided weapon that explodes. A bomb. We fired that baby at a target in pakistan. Hence: we bombed them. As far as leaving Iraq, well, I agree that we can not just pull out. Obama is not advocating that, but we can not have an open ended policy as well. Even Viet Nam eventually had a deadline. Do you really beleive that as long as an invasion force is occupying a country that that country will be stable? We have made strides with the surge. But just as Afghanistan is proving, we can not destroy the terrorists. We can hurt them, we can disrupt them, we can make them pay - and we should, but the real work of keeping them out will not be a military solution. A strong, Iraq, governed by Iraqi's, is the only answer. It will be plenty painful for the Iraqis when we leave, but we cann ot stay forever.

I have lived in six different States. Texas, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, New York, Oklahoma. And I have never heard the arguments against Lincoln that you are expousing. I have no doubt that there are people who to this day oppose Lincoln. But he saved the UNION. Imagine if you will a world where the United States - the entire United States, did not exist. That is what we faced in the Civil war. Think of what the world would be like if the full industrial might of the United States did not exist to combat the likes of the Kaiser and Hitler. Of course, Lincoln did not know what this country would do fifty years after the war, but he knew that this country could not survive being bisected. And the wars would never have ended if we were. Do you really think there would only have been one civil war if the south had won? Or that there would have never been a war if Lincoln had not pushed to keep the union whole? And please, do not try and bolster your arguments by dragging famous names through the mud, it is childish.

You admitted the truth that Al Quaeda already DOES have a terrorsit safe haven in the frontier between Pakistan and Afghanistan but you then criticise Obama because that's where he wants to deploy troops ???<p>
<p> (Look up the word "surge" BTW you'll find it is not a permanent proposition) So he's not the only one who will be proposing withdrawalls as even McCain can't magically make another Army or prevent troop rotation.<p>
<p>Turkey will grow increasingly unimpressed and belligerant with any Kurdish moves towards autonomy likewise when the Iraqi politicians finally
get back round the table to horsetrade and discuss the full return and district by district allocation of resources of water, electricity and the division of Oil wealth between the Sunnis and Shiites the Mahdi Army will suddenly stop being so "helpfull" and revert to their previous ethnic cleansing as will all the many splinter groups on both sides with the death squads returning and the idea of any remotely western style Dmeocracy vanishing like the women from the streets.<p>
<p>In short this disaster isn't over by a looong way and none of the candidates truly appreciates the gigantic steaming bucket of shit Bush has left for the next President on the White House steps.<p>
<p>
Oh and PS3 Burnout Paradise Graphics are slightly better than 360's. However it's which version of GTA4 will be the best that will count for the most so 360 extra online Eps may help it while superior PS3 grunt may help it look real superior.

GTA4 will sell an awful lot of consoles. Count on it. And getting a a "free" High Def DVD player with the PS3 may just seal the deal for an awful lot of people.<p>
<p>Hillary's previous anti GTA stance will cost her precious, precious "yoof" votes. ;-)

Ever since I was a teenager, I've loved seeing women tied up in movies and tv, not the gruesome ones where they get raped or hurt, but the ones where they're rescued or come out with little harm, and have a casual dialogue with their captors, etc. There was no video telling me that my sexual preferences were 'normal' and a 'lifestyle choice'. I didn't even bring it up. I lived. Homosexuals don't deserve special treatment any more than BDSM hobbyists. In fact, homosexuality is less taboo than what I like. Two fags can walk hand in hand in a supermarket now, but if I look at a picture of a woman ballgagged with nipple clamps in public or smile while Kate Beckinsale is being handcuffed in a scene at the theater, I get horrified looks. What's 'fair' about that? Sexual education doesn't belong in schools. Period. And kids shouldn't be educated about homosexuality at that age or even in a school setting. Besides, all it breeds is more 'political incorrectness, wha wha wha' with kids calling each other queers as insults on the schoolyard. Cannot have it both ways, pinko reeducationists.

<p>So you never heard anyone denounce Lincoln in Oklahoma or Texas? I find that incredible, quite frankly.</p>
<p>So why is the thought of a split country so worrisome to you? You make it sound like we'd drop off the planet the next day if that happened. We're getting along just fine with Canada, so I don't think it would be a big issue. As for not being able to participate in WWI and WWII, I'd consider that a tremendous bonus. The Kaiser was certainly no threat to us and that war was pretty much finished when we got into it. Neither side could fight much anymore and they were on the verge of settling. All we did, was insure a decisive victory for the allies, which led to the ridiculously unfair Treaty of Versailles, which led to conditions in Germany that allowed Hitler to come to power. I believe that if we would have stayed out of WWI, there wouldn't have been a WWII in the first place (or it would have been a different WWII with different players).</p>
<p>We settled our own country to escape that European nonsense in the first place. But war is the health of the state, which is why those who profit from big government are always big fans of wartime presidents. We have the most heavily armed citizenry in the world, we have nothing to worry about when it comes to invasion. All this chicken little crap about America disappearing or all speaking German it just propagandist tripe. War is about making money, pure and simple.</p>

for wingnut idiot of aicn...congrats....obama has never been a trial lawyer...he is a constitutional expert and chose to become a community activist rather than take a high powered wall street job...he was also the first african american in history elected as pres of the harvard law review....now go back to flippin burgers, tard boy

you forgot to note japan, and south korea....you also forgot to note just how many servicemen were or have been killed as a result of enemy fire in postwar japan, germany or italy....the answer, you wingnut fucktard is....ZERO....to compare the occupation of iraq with post ww2 germany or japan is idiocy...which fits every fucking wingnut in this country....so its off to gitmo for reeducation for the lot of you...cuz if you cant spend the time researching history, you can spend the time getting your fucking stupid asses waterboarded

...the Democrat nomination, because they are both losers, although Hillary will be the Democrat candidate for President come November - no way will she allow a darkie to steal this from her.
In November vote Libertarian.
www.lp.org

please explain to me why they are against it? That is one thing that truly puzzles me. Aside from the people getting married why in the fuck should it matter to anyone else. Why does it have to be strictlt between a man and a woman. why? its a fucking life long (supposedly) commitment to each other. Its a certificate of love at the end of the day. How in the fuck does a couple of blokes getting married effect ANYONE. If someone can give me a reason outside of "gays a yucky" I would appreciate it. Because as far as I can see having the right to get married is a right all of us should have has citizens. If I was gay I would want some kind of tax rebate or tax cut as I am obviously not considered to be of equal worth so why should I pay the same as everyone else.

do they really mean it? I didn't think repubs wanted to give illegals immunity...LIKE REAGAN DID....I didn't think they wantedto sit down and talk to the enemy ...LIKE REAGAN DID. i get sick and tired of hearing right wingers orgasmically talk about reagan yet in the same sentence attack others for merely suggesting they may do the exact same things that reagan actually did do during his time.

So much for subtlety indeed.<p>
<p> You DO realise that Germany was pretty much federated and running FOUR years after the End of a Cataclysmic World War which Dwarfs this sad incompetent misguided NeoCon invasion ?<p>
<p>There was no large scale uprising against the Allies in Italy and Germany and more importantly they were welcomed (perhaps even with flowers) on the streets and their presence was almost entirely by CONSENT.<p>
<p>Still it's good to know there are some so hopelessly out of touch with reality they think Iraq was a success or even more ludicrously that the majority of Americans who now think Iraq was a disaster are the delusional ones.(all "Leftists" apparently lol)<p>
<p>If you need it spelled out FIVE YEARS after the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions the countries are nowhere near peace or even a functioning state. They are both sliding further and further into the same repressive hard line religious sharia Law this "Liberation" was supposed to free the citizens from, while almost all civilian "security" is in the hands of Death Squads and Militias (i.e. non-existant)<p>
<p>In what conceivable universe is occupying a country with the dead still mounting month by inexorable month whilst trying to prevent civil war after FIVE years Mission Accomplished ????<p>
<p>This often happens after a war ? The disasterous ones perhaps.

Okay, I'm a moderate Liberal, borderline Conservative on some issues, so let me throw you my 2 pennies worth on gay marraige. <p>
I support gay unions but not marraige. I think loving gay couples should be able to join financially and have similar rights of survivorship, etc. And be able to raise a family, too, as married couples. <p>
But I believe "marraige" should be reserved for men and women because of its universal cultural value. Small difference, but I think gays would be just as happy with legal union without the label of marraige.

Is it possible to play a PS3 with a 360 controller? I got me some big man hands, the PS3 controller just don't fit, but I'm leaning towrads the PS3 for my next console... Honestly, is this a possibility, or a really stupid question?

I am not sure what to make of you. Whether you are serious or not, because that last post was simply breathtaking in it's stupidity. Mind you, I am not calling you stupid, simply the argument that you make. It seems that you are from the severe isolationist camp. Yes, I lived in Texas and Oklahoma and never once heard Lincoln being trashed like that. Perhaps f I had lived there 150 years ago it would be different, I don't know, but what I do know is that whle WWI was fought because a serious of interlocking political/military agreements forced the various combatants to honor commitments, WWII was a totally different animal. And learn your history, War was declared on the U.S. by Japan when they bombed Pearl Harbor. That pulled in Japan's allies - Italy and Germany, and that pulled in the United States. To stop the threat that an insane Nazi regime posed to the world, was considered one of the most noble undertakings in the human history of this planet, and for you to suggest otherwise, is beyond ridiculous. If you have a serious and thoughtful reply, please post it, and i will respond, but if you continue to espouse lunacy, i will simply bid you farewell.

The same knuckle-dragger (Morbididiocy) who defended ... Halliburton ... is now comparing Iraq to post-war Germany and Italy. Maybe the right to vote should be reserved for those who can actually color inside the lines, something this tard likely fails at.

...you can graduate from a respected university and rise to a position of prominence in your field and still manage to post the same kind of biased fabrications and half-truth straw man arguments as the garden variety propaganda-fed home-schooled sub humans that drool their bile across the internet and AM airwaves. There's no need for affirmative action for an eager stooge who willingly drinks the party Kool-Aid.

But I'm against all marriages. Why would you want to involve the government with you personal relationships? Also a marriage is no different than forming a corporation with someone - ever hear the saying don't mix business with pleasure.
Its 2008 not 1808 - Why is anybody still getting married?

They absolutely have the right to get married, just not in a CHRISTIAN ceremony. If they want a secular wedding, they should be allowed to have it. But it should not operate under the false assumption that God blesses it. That's the mistake right wing politicians make. They can't differentiate, and think Christian ceremony is the only way to get married.

The issue isn't that they can't take part in a Christian ceremony, it's that gay people aren't allowed to take responsibility for each other in times of crisis like straight married people can. Like for instance, if one person was in a coma in the hospital, their gay partner isn't given the same access to them and allowed to have a say in their well-being like straight married people are. Christians can keep their implied blessings from an invisible man in the sky, gay people just want to be able to be there for their partners in a way that is not currently possible without some kind of officially recognized union for gay people.

The Global Elite have already decided who is going to be President and they've likely outlined all the headlines that will get them to that agenda. It's all been carefully prepared, scripted and laid out by the Rockefellers and Rothschilds. Professional wrestling is more genuine than politics.

"Experience never exists in isolation; it is always a factor that coexists with temperament, training, background, spiritual outlook and a host of other factors. Character is your magic word, it seems to me--not just what they've done but how they've done it and what they've learned from doing it" (presidential historian Richard Norton Smith, qtd in Time Magazine, Vol 171, No 10 ) </p> <p> Time Magazine has an excellent article about experience and the presidency. Among its cogent points: <p> <p> 1) Deeply experienced leaders often make disastrous mistakes and miscalculations. Bush's Iraq War, Woodrow Wilson's postwar foreign policy, FDR's Court Packing scheme. </p> <p> 2) If we were voting only based on someone's experience/resume, why wouldn't we nominate someone like Bill Richardson (D) or Tom Ridge (R)? </p> <p> 3) If experience matters so much, if knowing "the system" is so important, wouldn't second term Presidents be more successful than first term ones? </p> <p> 4) Lincoln, among the least experienced Presidents ever, achieved greatness while the two vertan politican presidents before and after him failed miserably. </p> <p> Experience gets its value from the person who has it. "Richard Nixon served as a Congressman, Senator, and Vice President; he watched from the front row as Eisenhower assembled one of the best-organized administrations in history. When Nixon's turn came, though; his core character--insecure, insincere, conspiratorial--led him to create a White House doomed by its own dysfunction." (30). </p> <p> Whoever you vote for people, make your vote after considering a variety of issues. Look at each candidate's positions carefully, because they are often nuanced. Vote for the person whose character you believe to be the right one to lead us for the next four years. </p> <p> Oh yeah, and maybe you could stop calling each other fucktards and realize that it's ok to have different political opinions. But let's discuss the real issues and not swallow the talking points. Let's debate passionately. But please, for Pete's sake, can we stop the stupid, illiterate name-calling that belongs on the playground? Can we speak like grown-ups? [steps off of soapbox] Get a clue ass people! </p>

"Experience never exists in isolation; it is always a factor that coexists with temperament, training, background, spiritual outlook and a host of other factors. Character is your magic word, it seems to me--not just what they've done but how they've done it and what they've learned from doing it" (presidential historian Richard Norton Smith, qtd in Time Magazine, Vol 171, No 10 ) </p> <p> Time Magazine has an excellent article about experience and the presidency. Among its cogent points: <p> <p> 1) Deeply experienced leaders often make disastrous mistakes and miscalculations. Bush's Iraq War, Woodrow Wilson's postwar foreign policy, FDR's Court Packing scheme. </p> <p> 2) If we were voting only based on someone's experience/resume, why wouldn't we nominate someone like Bill Richardson (D) or Tom Ridge (R)? </p> <p> 3) If experience matters so much, if knowing "the system" is so important, wouldn't second term Presidents be more successful than first term ones? </p> <p> 4) Lincoln, among the least experienced Presidents ever, achieved greatness while the two vertan politican presidents before and after him failed miserably. </p> <p> Experience gets its value from the person who has it. "Richard Nixon served as a Congressman, Senator, and Vice President; he watched from the front row as Eisenhower assembled one of the best-organized administrations in history. When Nixon's turn came, though; his core character--insecure, insincere, conspiratorial--led him to create a White House doomed by its own dysfunction." (30). </p> <p> Whoever you vote for people, make your vote after considering a variety of issues. Look at each candidate's positions carefully, because they are often nuanced. Vote for the person whose character you believe to be the right one to lead us for the next four years. </p> <p> Oh yeah, and maybe you could stop calling each other fucktards and realize that it's ok to have different political opinions. But let's discuss the real issues and not swallow the talking points. Let's debate passionately. But please, for Pete's sake, can we stop the stupid, illiterate name-calling that belongs on the playground? Can we speak like grown-ups? [steps off of soapbox] Get a clue ass people! </p>

An ongoing military presence cannot continue safely or succesfully in a failed state. It simply prolongs the violence since there is no functioning Iraqi apparatus of Government or consent of the people to guarantee it's viability.<p>
<p>If McCain is content to see the bodycount rise for 100 more years he may recieve a shock from the Voters. The surge has temporarily reduced the level of violence to 2005 levels but there has been no significant or lasting political progress which was the stated aim and point of the surge. Without it the Militias and Death Squads are more powerfull than ever and the disconnect between the Iraqi Politicians safely ensconced in the Green Zone and the actual ruling factions on the street has been almost total.<p>
<p>The idea that you can "win" an open ended enforced occupation is a fatuous one albiet one the George W Bush himself started with the Mission Accomplished nonsense.<p>
<p>To "win" you must have aims you intend to achieve. Bush has rolled back those aims further and further as the Iraq chaos has continued. If the aim was to kill Saddam Husssien that was achieved years ago so why are the troops still there ? If the Aim was WMD elimination that was exposed as at best a gross error and at worst a complete Lie. If the aim was a functioning Western Style Democracy Bush himself has backed away from that as the Iraqi Government made more and more religious concessions to the Militias (previously insurgent terrorists with whom nobody supposedly negotiated) resulting in Taliban style Sharia edicts enforced by the Militias on the streets of Baghdad and the rest of the country.<p>
<p>If the Shiite, Sunni and Kurd factions demand Partition of Iraq as the price for maintaining any semblance of permanent military bases then will McCain give in to them ? Will any of the candidates ? Because a divided Iraq with the powerbases of Saudi Arabia and Iran and a heavily armed Turkey opposing this utterly is not only a recipe for coninued chaos but a long way from any supposed "Victory" no matter how hard anyone tries to redefine it.

Actually the mission was accomplished when Bush was on the aircraft carrier, but then the mission changed - none of use were told though. Bush said he was against nation building but that's exactly what he got himself and the country in. With few exceptions Bush has governed and acted as a Democrat. The Republicans should have turned on him years ago.

Where was the small print on the Mission Accomplished banner that said *This only applies to certain military personnel within strictly defined parameters ?<p>
<p>All I saw was naive triumphalism masking a shattered state.<p>
<p>I didn't say the "war" is lost because it isn't a war it's an open ended occupation.<p>
<p>The surge is a failure by the terms in which it was actually proposed (look into it, the idea that you shove troops in only to reduce the bodycount temporarily is a self defeating one. Clear and hold only works as a Military tactic because of the HOLD part. If the troops leave the civilians are at the mercy of the same forces as before because the political progress was INTEGRAL to locking in the HOLD with a TRUSTED Iraqi security apparatus not just another ethnic Militia or Death squad. There has been scant evidence of any real progress in returning either the infrastructure or security forces to anything resembling a viable state)<p>
<p>I make no argument for a continued military presence because there are no circumstances in which it could achive anything other than continued violence.<p>
<p>Removing the troops will expose Iraq to incredible destabailsing forces both Religious and Political but the alternative is business as usual with a series of surges and ethnic power plays with the bodycount rising day after day as it has for the last five years.<p>
<p>There must be an internal solution to Iraq that much has been obvious for years but handing the current Iraq political apparatus a blank cheque of unlimited support for 100 years means there will never be any real progress as the factions will play each other against the U.S. without any incentive to bury the ethnic factionalism and form a unified security, infrastructure and economic policy.<p>
<p>It will take formidable negotiation to force the Iraqi Government to drop the sectarian power games and try to unify the country but simply adding troops every 6 months or so will achieve nothing. The surrounding states must be brought into the negotiation and even then Iraq will only become even semi autonomous with the help of many, many countries who opposed the war not just the original coalition so any return to NeoCon styleb chestbeating will be self defeating.

You proposed a Picard/Sisko ticket. What... The... Fuck? Have you never heard of Kirk? That guy is way better than Jean-Luc or Sisko: he got all sorts of space-action. Do you really want a Pres/Vice whose only proof that they ever got any poon is in the backstory?

if you could tell me what point you were trying to make in that mess of a post. 1992? Shut the fuck up. Does a banner get hung every time a mission is won? Uh, no. It was hung to give Bush some PR. Obviously it worked on the weak-minded such as yourself, 5 years into the quagmire.

no, it doesn't. There has been over 200,000 troops cycled through Iraq over several years. Four thousand doesn't count as a massive loss, whatsoever. And before people start bitching, I have lost multiple friends to IED's, in Iraq. Death/mutilation/horror is part of the job description of "soldier." It is terrible, but what is even more terrible, is that the insurgency in Iraq has both been in a total tailspin (as admitted through their own communications) and has used American "documentaries" and "books" and "articles" as propaganda, for their cause.

Even if Clinton were to win every state from here on out (which is very unlikely), she would still be behind by approximately 70+ delegates. (The most likely scenario is that she will fall behind around 200+ delegates in the end.) This is all going to be decided at the convention by the super delegates.<p><p>And as far as they're concerned, they're "supposed" to vote for the candidate who won the most delegates. Traditionally, that's what they've done. However, they are NOT required to vote for the candidate with the most delegates -- but, again, they most likely will. Yes, this time, a larger than normal number of them will probably defect and vote for Clinton... but it's unlikely a large majority of them will do so in order to crown her the nominee. Maybe she will get 60 to 80 super delegates to vote for her.

Fair enough in your assesment of a military definition of "massive loss", but it bothers me that the few Americans who still believe that the mess in Iraq will ultimately benefit anyone have no problem accusing those against it that they are somehow anti-troop, while simultaneously casually dismissing the deaths of 4000 american servicemen and women. I agree that death/mutilation/horror is part of the job description, but soldiers don't go there to die, they go there to serve their country. If the occupation of Iraq is truly serving the interests of the American people, those 4000 deaths mean something. If there is some other reason, or a number of other reasons this is happening, then the lives of those soldiers have been exploited and wasted for nothing.
<p>
It's not up to the soldier to decide policy, that's the job of the government, the people we elect. Ultimately, we are complicit.
<p>
While you're moaning about terrorists using American docs as propaganda to recruit, bombs are falling, innocents are being killed, and American soldiers are in the middle of all that shit, killing and beiong killed. What's a more heinous recruitment tool? Michael Moore's fat face, or the corpses and burned out ruins, and annihilation that are trademarks of the occupation?

You really are lame. If you can't make sense, then at least take a page from USS Cygnus' playbook and limit yourself to a few turdy posts so you don't make a total fool of yourself and your side. Freaking tard.

Easy to make light of 4,000 dead soldiers and another 30,000 wounded when you're an armchair warrior. Just like your defense of Halliburton as some victim of a Leftwing Accounting Conspiracy, as evidenced by your "economic and legal papers at Harvard" you're nothing but the political equivalent of a snake oil salesman. "Losses to capital that never occurred" ... ROFLMAO

you basically make most of the arguments i would make to make my friends still over there smaller targets. but, you purposefully forget, the US has done more, than any other military force in the entire history of this globe, to limit civilian casualties. it's true, civilians are dying in Iraq, but in less and less numbers (due to the armed forces billy-bad-ass-ness and the local Iraqi's sick of non-locals and foreigners moving in and stirring shit up.

Bit I think that has more to do with the efficiency and dare I say conscience of the Military leadership than to the policies that got us into it in the first place. In this case, I'm pro-military, anti government. But again, like I said, it's not up to soldiers to write the policy, just carry it out. No matter how much of a great job the military is doing in limiting casualties, I'm still against the occupation. I believe it's based on lies and propaganda.

but when you get sentences from Stevie, who claims to be a Harvard student, like "you basically make most of the arguments i would make to make my friends still over there smaller targets" and "but in less and less numbers (due to the armed forces billy-bad-ass-ness and the local Iraqi's sick of non-locals and foreigners moving in and stirring shit up." ... <p>
... you know it's time to stop fighting with kids from the short bus.

I spent three years of my life performing the military recommended Green Beret training routine - to do the best in the preliminary testing (it's impossible to actually be in good enough shape to face special forces training: hence, the point). From 10th grade until I gave up on my shoulder two years ago, I wanted to be a Green Beret Officer. But, given a gimp shoulder from high school football and my level of education in a quantitative field, even if I went to bootcamp tomorrow, I would never see any combat. Given my education, experience, and gimp-hood; I could do well on Wall Street, but not in combat. I would completely dislocate my shoulder within the first couple minutes on the first obstacle course on basic training.

Really that the best you can do ? Ohhhhh dear.<p>
<p>Imaginary Ranting Leftists too stupid to know that an invasion by the largest most well funded and technologicaly advanced military force on earth marshalled against an already beaten and crippled by sanctions Iraq could only ever end one way ? Yeah they would be idiots if they existed.<p>
<p>Opposition to the war was never predicated on America somehow being unable to overturn Saddams regime by force. The idea of invading a state because of "imaginary" or "speculative" danger in the future or because it wasn't a Country or Leader that Bush & his administration liked very much was already a hugely contentious one.<p>
<p>Some, (Leftists, Rightists and in fact most of the World as it happens) were against the invasion of Iraq before it started and thought it was an incredibly dangerous, unnecessary and stupid thing to do. Others looked at the Bush, Cheney, Administration and thought they simply couldn't handle an incredibly difficult nation building task of that magnitude whatever the rights or wrongs of the Invasion.<p>
<p>They were correct.<p>
<p>There were also those who thought it would last a few months, the troops would be greeted as Liberators and Democracy would flourish because they said it would.<p>
<p>They were Wring. Very, very wrong (Morons if you will)<p>
<p>Bush Cheney and the NeoCons handled things with spectacular incompetence so an already supremely difficult task was made impossible in mere months<p>
<p>Tell me with perhaps hundreds of thousands of civilians dead, thousands of U.S. and British troops dead, a state that cannot guarantee the security of it's own people with ethnic cleansing, Militias and Death squads unchecked and a new religious autocracy resembling Iran's, a mass exodus of millions to neighbouring states strengthening Iran and breeding Terrorists every hour and every day with Abu Graib and Guantanamo staining Americas image worldwide while Bush and the NeoCons pour Trillions into Iraq with little to show for it, money it would never spend on it's own citizens, with a reduction in the number of deaths hailed as a triumph as if there is an acceptable number of deaths for Iraq and the U.S. per month, with the media now not reporting Iraq as if that will make it go away. With no end in sight after FIVE YEARS ! Would certain types categorize that as a "Victory" ? Or does the cold hard fact of a military catastrophe overseen by incompetant idiots offend certain types?<p>
Nobody thought it could ever get THAT bad. Nobody preached THAT Doomsday scenario at the beginning of the War... Yet here we are.<p>
<p>So who is being realistic and who is being a naive polyanna ?

then we are brothers (of a sort). i'm also very anti-government. but, the sad fact remains that the reasons for the invasion don't matter because our nation is in Iraq right now, and has been for years. And, we are winning. To leave now would only send the message, "Hey future enemies! Make a conflict long enough, bloody enough, and with enough civilian casualties... we'll just give up and leave!!!"

You'd lose $4 billion for your company just like that schmuck at Societe Generale. What education are you talking about? Everything you've ever said was complete nonsense, especially the bullshit you played out in the Halliburton defense. Seriously, who are you trying to fool? I've listened to a number of soldiers who served in Iraq and didn't even come close to parroting your warmongering tone. Fucking disrespecting 4,000 dead soldiers like their lives were nothing but a negligible statistic. Fuck you.

Just as things are getting interesting.
<p>
Stevie, this is going to seem lame, but didn't that happen in VietNam? Things change, enemies, eras, battlegrounds, I don't think the enemies in Iraq are using VietNam as an argument, or maybe they are.
<p>
Anyway, nice to (almost) agree with someone from the other side.
<p>
One last thing, from a true patriot:
<p>
"Loyalty to your country always, loyalty to your government when they deserve it."
<p>
-Mark Twain

Actually, I'm in my last semester of college. And it is a terrible time for me to manage money (in any field). I don't need to go off in an economist type explanation... the media is by and large sensationalist and has hyped the "recession" case. I don't disagree; in all likelihood we are heading into one. But, that's all the more reason for me just to continue my education (I'm taking a year off to work a full-time job, make some money, and then get my JD/MBA). And, I come from a ECONOMIC background. I will take it personally if you insinuate any connection between me and France.

You are swimming in bullshit. Halliburton is not the anti-Christ. Despite the news reports (and leftist documentaries) that accurately report specific Halliburton districts, in limited time-frames, spending less than 2% of what they were paid on "questionable costs". Tool.

You think the media is overhyping the recession? Funny. I think they're underhyping it because they're too chickenshit to report what's really going on. Obviously you have no idea what the real story is with this country's financial institutions that signal an eventual meltdown that makes a recession look like a picnic. And I find it incredulous for a current economics major who's heading towards grad school to have no clue what I'm referring to with Societe Generale. <p>
Your self-described credentials are, to say the least, suspect.

Don't you think Osama Bin Laden should perhaps finally feel the wrath of the U.S. military ? Or is that too "Leftist" for you ?<p>
<p>After all he was behind 9/11 not Saddam. Though anyone with half a brain knew that before the Invasion. He and most of the Al Quaeda network are in Pakistan and Afghanistan not Iraq. The state department knows it the C.I.A. knows it the N.S.A. knows it. Simple fact. Why not go after the correct target for a change ?<p>
<p>BTW most of the imaginary stories about WMD were made by a discredited Alcoholic Iraqi exile codenamed "curveball" Absolutely true,look it up.

I have never disrespected the "troops" as a whole (the exceptions are on a individual basis with guys I've known for over 15 years; and they had it coming for playing the "hero" when they were trying to trash the local bar and have never left Texas). Where I grew up, about 10% of every graduating, high-school class went into the military. Luckily, only a couple have actually died over there. I spent the last couple months of the fall semester of my Sophomore year consoling a girl whose future husband (and a drinking buddy of mine) died due to an IED. And I don't even come close to the "war-mongering" talk that the soldiers (now veterens) I know preach.

and his camp fucked up, bad.. Now, Penn is hers for sure, Miss is hers, Wyoming is hers.. Uh-oh, all of a sudden, we're going into May tied up.. This thing is going to the convention unless 500 or more superdelegates pledge for one of these 2.. Interesting... Meanwhile, McCain can get out there, starting tomorrow, with fund raisers with prez bush... By the time the dems get done with this ass fucking competition, McCain will be totally dialed in with message and rhedoric....

No, the media is actually correct in their fear-mongering about a recession. In the entirety of economic history (that is, the economic history that still applies to the current situation), there have only been 2 housing bubbles pop that didn't end in recession. One was right before the Korean War, and the other was right before the Vietnam War. And, stop acting like I don't know the leftist point of view. I do. One of my economic professors, Jeffrey Leibman, works for the the Obama campaign. However, he does get his ass handed to to him every time he tries to debate Martin Feldstein (who worked in the Reagan Administration and is a superstar in the economics field).

Wasn't ONE 9/11 more than enough and one too many !?!?!?!<p>
<p> Some would ask more searching questions about letting one atrocity like that occur never mind bragging that there has only been one.<p>
<p> I still say go after the correct target not the wrong one.
Al Quaeda have mounted multiple attacks since 9/11 thankfully just not any succesfull ones on American soil. But they are clearly still around while Saddam is not.<p>
<p>After 9/11 which was the correct choice of target to focus almost all the U.S. Military attention on and which target was more likely to ensure the safety of not just America but it's Allies in Europe and around the World ?<p>
<p>Take your time it might be a trifle tough for you to answer.

The housing bubble? That's old news. <p>
Tell me, as an economics major, do you even read the financial news on a daily basis, or do you just read textbook theory? Because you are ill-prepared to enter the real world.

And yes, I know about that French "maverick." And, it is too soon to tell if we are currently in a recession. But, the FED will be able to declare whether we are or not soon. Economics is not chemical engineering, we can't perform a slew of experiments in a few days and definitively declare fact (within a specified confidence interval). But, long story short, we just don't know about the recession yet, but it doesn't look good.

That was the most mealy-mouthed opinion about the economy I've heard since Bush was questioned about it last week. <p>
The bad news is that you're bullshitting. <p>
The good news is you're qualified to be President. Congrats.

I wish the housing bubble was old news, you should too. Also, finance and economics are two different things. My economic background is not ideal for any specific job, but I have already participated in forming a systems dynamics model for the NIH and have utilized econometrics to show clear evidence of backwarddation (last year) in the oil spot market and proof of cartel activity of cartel behavior in late 19th century rail-road barons. Don't disrespect an economics background; it's good for all sorts of shit.

sorry just sick of it all. I live in ohio and have been gitting mail/ phone calls non stop. up till about 7pm tonight. HC callers and door knockers have been to look up or fwd me to some one who could anser anything i asked. BO callers and knockers have never been able to anser anything. on a side knote I think John Glenn doing ads for clinton gave her the win.

Bin Laden was and still is in the Afghanistan Pakistan frontier region. what part of that don't you understand ?
And even now al Quaeda are responsible a fraction of the violence in Iraq while most of the recent terrorist outrages have been traced back to Fundamentalist Religious schools in Pakistan and training camps in Afghanistan.

you amazing fucktard....after the cessation of hostilities in ww2, how many allies died in the following weeks???? how many you stupid piece of shit?? how many??? i know its hard to count that high, cuz the number remains....ZERO!!!!!!!!!!...im talking weeks, not 60 years you numbnuts...and yes, only 20% still support the occupation....why does the dem congress keep rolling over? cuz they are indebted to their corporate masters just like the repugs...a pox on both their fucking houses....the economy is falling apart around them, but they keep borrowing billions from the chinese to fund an illegal and immoral occupation...fuck them....fuck everyone running for prez...im sick of the whole lot of them...now release the dark knight already so i can take my mind off this shit

actually there were alot of casualties following the occupations of Germany and Japan. They weren't as robust, but then again, Allied/US troops were pretty hard about it back then (suspected "Werewolves" --don't know the German word--) were tied to a post in the town square and shot in the head.

damn. The real problem is, is they Muslim nations are alot like Latin America ---> Aristocracies/Thugocracies. For example, all of Iran's educated youth leave and never return (by the way, economically, Iran needs a miracle... like more expensive oil). There are a ton of papers out over this. The educated, young, Muslims are making an exodus to the West. Hell, I even know guys like that. For example, there's a guy (will not even attempt to spell his name) who is a grad student in the psych department at my school, who will no go back to Iran because, "I now cannot do without bacon and beer." Truer words were never said.

They have or at least had loose ties with various unsavoury groups but their base of operations is clearly in Sudan. They are currently held responsible for many Darfur atrocities but have distanced themselves from any overt international operations.<p>
<p>So what have they to do with Bin Laden's CURRENT location, Pakistan or Afghanistan ? Because even they rejected Bin Laden after harbouring him briefly in the early 90's.

There is a United Islamic Front in Afghanistan perhaps that is who you meant ? Though these are "supposedly" allies with the west in Afghanistan despite alleged internal displacement and executions, widespread rape, arbitrary arrests and "disappearances" targeted against the civilian population

The invasion was in 2003 this group was focused on Sudan and to an extent Darfur at the time and had actually in the past criticised Saddam anyway despite lambasting Gulf War 1 (because they are that kind of Islamic group, it's a reflex)<p>
<p>Whatever tenous link you may be harbouring is certainly not one I'm aware of as a Secular Saddam made many enemies in most of the Radical Islamic groups not just Al Quaeda.

... he says. As if pure fact has ever had ANYTHING AT ALL to do with the way shit runs, these days or ever.
<p>
Stevie & morbid - read back over enough of your combined posts to recognize yet another 2 in what feels like a never ending stream of marginally "well-read" right wing parrots, spewing their poisonous bullshit all over the American political climate for at least the last 24+ years. I don't know what to say to you guys, beyond just imploring you to please LOOK THE FUCK AROUND AND TELL ME HOW THINGS ARE BETTER?
<p>
You have the AUDACITY to wonder why oponents of your brand of weak-minded fear and slavish devotion are so pissed that half the time we can barely speak to you?
<p>
Again, I implore you to look around. You assholes and your fox-like ilk have had run of the henhouse for awhile now, and the only thing that's changed is the number of eggs.
<p>
You have the balls, or maybe just the moral retardation, necessary to talk of things like "Fact", when all your idealogues have done is attempt to warp and control them to their favor. And it is a testament to your complete failure as a human and an American citizen, that you and yours cannot see the faults at play, or worse yet, you see and still deny.

they were doing that so that they had some one to make fun of. they well know that if the US gets BO that they will not be able to say much with out being branded a racest. hell look at Don Imus, the nappy thing was rude but not realy much more. If HC gets the nod they will be safe to make jokes with out fear. talk show host care more about the job than any party line.

If your link is as good as you say it is by all means tell us. But since She senate Intelligence Group and Britain's Joint Intelligence Committee BOTH looked for links post 2003 and dismissed 99.9% of them as baseless or out and out lies (the other .01, one mysterious meeting, remains disputed not proven wither way) I must say you have some very good contacts or are prepared to base your conclusion on allegation alone.<p>
<p>A bit like WMD then ?

Hopefully, the 21st century shows humanity is past that? Well, one should hope that is the case. But have you checked the world news lately? Seems like we've barely progressed past the idea of a Carthaginian Peace. I half expect people like Ashok0 to say that we should start sowing the ground with salt.

Also like WMD.<p>
Remember ! We are stacking your evidence against absolutley rock solid and verified intelligence that Osama Bin Laden the Leader of Al Quaeda and architect of 9/11 was harboured by the Taliban in Afghanistan then took the bulk of his operations and followers into Tora Bora and eventualy the frontier Pakistan provinces. None of this is disputed.<p>
<p>So what is it that made the Al Qaueda threat such a clear and present danger in Iraq as opposed to Bin Laden and his complicity in the 9/11 atrocity ?<p>
<p>Actually you should tell Bush about this as it sounds like Intelligence Gold and an apocalyptic threat to manage to trump Bin Laden and 9/11.

"Bitter & twisted"?
<p>
Try fucking enraged, and wishing there were a candidate out there, on EITHER SIDE of the aisle, who even remotely embodied the kind of righteous streetsweeper I envision our nation (that's right, yours and mine, I know it's a hard concept to swallow, but please little birdie, try) to be in desperate need of.

I am more than "marginally well-read," was once liberal, have lived in a liberal city for four years now... and can tell you that all of the latter dissuaded me from being liberal. My current understanding of the modern liberal mindset is, "let's vote socialists into office... that way we are excused from from our conscious." Liberal policies only make things worse, and liberals are in denial about that. Apparently, voting Democrat absolves oneself of any responsibility to one's fellow man; and raising taxes are the new Indulgences. It's pathetic. Democrat policies have the opposite effects of their intentions. That it, aside from the Democrat voters feeling much better about themselves. I studied this extensively when I made my transition to Classical Liberal from Modern Liberal (aka Democrat Socialist). Modern Liberals are pathetic, weak minded fools... hence "Open-mindedness." You know, that political and social philosophy that states "only this far left of the mainstream is acceptable; anything else is not "open-minded" and should not be analyzed, only ridiculed as stupid."

Seriously. It's not enough to base a verifiable report on never mind an Invasion. But you know this speculation, lies, half truth, & supposed one off meetings is the refuge of a desperate man since most of the wikipedia article you are reading is prefaced by this -<p>
<p>The Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda timeline below list allegations of meetings, all but one now discounted, denied or disproven by the United States Government, between al-Qaeda members and members of Saddam Hussein's government, as well as other information relevant to the theory that Saddam conspired with al-Qaeda. It is important to note that not all of the specific claims about meetings can be substantiated with evidence, and that many of the intelligence agencies and experts who have analyzed the evidence have concluded that no substantial links exist. As terrorism analyst Evan Kohlman points out, "While there have been a number of promising intelligence leads hinting at possible meetings between al-Qaeda members and elements of the former Baghdad regime, nothing has been yet shown demonstrating that these potential contacts were historically any more significant than the same level of communication maintained between Osama bin Laden and ruling elements in a number of Iraq's Persian Gulf neighbors, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Qatar, and Kuwait."[1]
Additionally, a 2006 Senate report concluded in part:
“ Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support.[2] ”
The same report also concluded:
“ Postwar findings have identified only one meeting between representatives of al-Qa'ida and Saddam Hussein's regime reported in prewar intelligence assessments. Postwar findings have identified two occasions, not reported prior to the war, in which Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qa'ida operative. The Intelligence Community has not found any other evidence of meetings between al'Qa'ida and Iraq. ”
As a result of the Senate report, many believe that the entire connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda constitutes an official deception based on the "cherry-picking" of only that intelligence that bolstered the case for war with Iraq regardless of its reliability. The BBC reports the reaction to this report;
“ Opposition Democrats are accusing the White House of deliberate deception. They say the revelation undermines the basis on which the US went to war in Iraq.[2]<p>
<p>Not to mention you haven't adressed the laughably simple question of why any of this tenous stuff was in 2003 considered a greater threat than Bin Laden the architect of 9/11 and his Al Quaeda network who was KNOWN to be in Afghanistan/Pakistan NOT Iraq ?

Look - maybe I was too quick to bite. That does happen. I always find myself in a corner in political discussions, as I do not easily fall into so-called (media-enforced) Liberal or Conservative modes of operation. Call it lazy, or call it (oh, I don't know) being one who believes very strongly in the concept of a Democratic Republic. There are pros and cons to both sides, always have always will be. Where I take umbrage with the "discourse" in our nation today is the point where it ceases to be solely about what is best for the nation and her citizens, and instead becomes, at best, a textbook argument about archetypes on both sides that are rarely based in reality ("liberals are _____, conservatives are ______"), and at worst, an ill-informed battle between 2 opposing cults of personality. There are major faults on both sides right now, but I honestly feel that anyone who can say that they believe what the nation needs is essentialy more of the same is out of their fucking mind.
<p>
There is a tipping point, and I would not like to reach it. We've only been here for a little over 230 years, little more than a blink of history's eye, and far too early for The Great Experiment to die at the hands of those afraid to think or question.

The whole,"America's a young nation," argument it total crap. Germany (or people from the collective area), brought Modernity... several centuries ago. For over a hundred years now, it has been the US carrying that torch. And, I'm not a Conservative or a Republican... that's why I called myself a Classical Liberal. I really, really, really don't like the status quo or the media; which, excusably (they are business, after all), is only interested in ratings: not news. And, I hate saying it, but we are nowhere near a tipping point. Republicans and Democrats have massive invested interests in the status quo (money flowing into Washington). The political keywords that get my vote are fiscal responsibility, limited government and states' rights (none have any realistic chance at actualization however). By the way, the "Great Experiment" died when it turned out that the marginal product of capital increases not decreases (Marx and Engels fundamental mistake... though they were good economists, they just couldn't have realized it yet due to the period of history they lived in).

"It's 3 a.m. Your precious children are asleep with dreams of flowers and rainbows dancing in their heads. The phone is ringing in the white house. Who do you want there to have somebody else answer the phone for them?" Goddamn there are some stupid people in this country.

People like to use the "young nation" argument to apologize to Europeans... but France has undergone 5 Republics during the time frame we've just had one Constitution. Which nation seems to have it shit together better (and wasn't the only nation to voluntarily work for Nazi Germany?)

McCain will choose his friend, Fred Thompson as his running mate. Thompson's disinterest in his own campaign, along with dropping out early, were part of the plan from the beginning. Pro wrestling is more genuine than politics.

No Network. No organised cells. No Legions of mindless suicide bombers.<p>
<p>Nada. Zip. Zilch. Get it ?<p>
<p>
Speculative meetings and third hand accounts of talks or rumours simply don't count.<p>
<p>You can't launch an Invasion against a rumoured meeting or a contact. Is that clear enough ? <p>
<p>In plain English then...<p>
<p> Al Quaeda were in the Afghanistan and Pakistan border country along with Bin Laden in 2003. They were NOT in Iraq in 2003.<p>
<p>After about a year they had established a foothold amongst some factions of the burgeoning insurgency and THEN they were well and truly IN Iraq. They weren't maybe having meetings about being in Iraq. They weren't perhpas having secret talks about being in Iraq. They were IN Iraq laying IEDs and killing Soldiers and Civilians and have been ever since. BUT they have ALWAYS been a small fraction of the actual insurgency since their Base of Operations REMAINS in the Afghan/Pakistan Border.<p>
<p>I think that should be clear enough for almost anyone. :)

The liberal agenda in this country is one of weakness and entitlement. Rights are to be bestowed upon people on the basis of how they choose to behave in the bedroom. Abortion is to be as convenient as ordering a cheese burger. Islamic terrorists are permitted freedom to operate around the globe, and anyone who questions their theology is to be branded a bigot. Homosexuality is to be sanctified by the government and subsidized in the name of tolerance. Multi-culturalism ALWAYS trumps unity and national identity. Our borders are not to be even a minor hindrance to anyone with a raft or pair of tennis shoes. It's America's fault.
Those are just a few of their greatest hits.

Awww man that's hilarious.<p>
<p>Why were you quoting from it then if it's a leftist source ? (and I can easily put your words and the relevant passage side by side if you really wish ?)<p>
<p> And try READING instead of selectively quoting so you won't look quite so blatantly dishonest.<p>
Because when you say - "that the source for the report is Hussein and other captured Iraqis" What it ACTUALLY says is - "all but one now discounted, denied or disproven by the ***United States Government****, between ***al-Qaeda members*** and **members of Saddam Hussein's government**<p>
<p>Nice try though.

From what I hear in arguments, I cannot help but feel I have stumbled upon a Liberal secret: they have secretly created a time machine. Using this Time Machine, we must decide whether or not we should go back in time and stop us from going to war in Iraq. That's what I get from this argument: no WMD's... no Al Qaeda... then we MUST go back in time and stop the War in Iraq before it starts!<p>
However, if no time machine exists, then you people are fucking morons. We have ALREADY gone in. We have ALREADY taken out Saddam Hussein's regime. We're now currently building the Iraqi people's government back up.<p>
It's no longer a WAR. It's a HUMANITARIAN EFFORT. How can liberals be against a humanitarian effort? Unless, of course, it's being run by Bush. Then you must hate it like the demon's child's ugly face.

It all seems so simple ...
<p>
And then every year it gets miserably mucked up by fucks who seek their own agendas, liberals who are only truly liberal when it serves, conservatives who are loathe to conserve anything at all, corporate interests that serve the almighty profit, and the vultures that gnaw on what's left.
<p>
You know, there's not a candidate in this race that I completely support and I just wonder if the problem lies with me or them.
<p>
Apparently me, as everyone else seems to have already lined up and chosen sides.

Do you actually WANT to be FORCED to get insurance where, if you refuse, they will take the money to pay for the healthcare of others OUT of your paycheck? At least if Huckabee were an option in November, we would have a chance of introducing the Fair Tax system. But Obama and Hilary want to punish the successful and reward the lazy.

While we're at it who exactly do you talk to to confirm or disprove a link between Al Quaeda and Iraq ?<p>
<p>The church of scientology and Iceland ?<p>
<p>The Black Panthers and France ?<p>
<p>The Peoples front of Judea and Peru ?<p>
<p>NO. I'm afraid you have to talk to the parties involved. Al Qaueda and Iraq. And if you think the Senate Intelligence Commitee or The Joint Intelligence Commiteee don't know how to differentiate blatant bullshit or propaganda from the verifiable solid intelligence you underestimate them somewhat.

No tie between Iraq and Al Qaeda? Saddam was still a dick, but that is beside the point.<p>
We can forever argue whether or not it was a good idea to go into Iraq, but that currently has no play on anything whatsoever. We're IN Iraq. We're trying to get the Iraqi government to stand on its own.<p>
It is a HUMANITARIAN effort. There is no way to go back in time and stop the War in Iraq. Immediately pulling our troops out will do nothing productive and will hurt everyone in the short term and the long run.

Challanging Revisionist Propaganda requires no time machine.<p>
<p>I've already covered the present situation in Iraq thank you and a humanitarian effort doesn't require a dozen or so permanent military bases or front line troops and JDam weaponry.<p>
<p>This is still a military occupation.<p>
<p>It becomes a humanitarian effort when it is handled primarily by the humanitarian organisations from the UN and around the world. The Red Cross, Medecins sans Frontiers. Oxfam. Islamic relief. Save the Children UniCef. Christian Aid. etc. etc. etc.<p>
<p> NOT the 101st Airborne Screaming Eagles or the Marine Core. They are warfighters not peacekeepers. The transition you speak of is sadly still a pipe dream at the moment.

Seriously. The Republicans fark up America for four years, and the Dems choose Kerrybot5000. The Republicans fark up America for another four years, and now the Dems are inches away from choosing Hillary, aka The Most Polarizing Candidate Ever (TM). Ugh. Do they actually want to win, or do they get off by losing? McCain v. Hillary = mountains of boring pointlessness.

In my mind, I would like to imagine a world where the Bush administration, and in turn every voter, government employee, and media pundit who got behind him unequivicably, without any consideration to ramification and under false pretense, would at least admit, just a little, that they MAY have fucked up and misjudged things just a bit.
<p>
I think that'd clear the air, so to speak, greatly.
<p>
I don't believe so much in absolute right and wrong anymore, and I know there're people who'd debate that alone, but it seems to me that there has to be a reason that the CIA (and various other foreign organizations devoted to like-minded ideals) spent better than 40 years of trial & error, attempting to manipulate events for "the better", auspiciously.
<p>
I just wonder, with having read yesterday's headlines regarding Iran being the greatest threat to the relative state of the Middle East, if any of those guys are a bit annoyed by the toppled Jenga tower that is the last 8-16 years worth of work.

Yes this is apparently still a contest and nobody is happier than the Media because they will milk this for all it is worth with ALL Hillary and Obama ALL the time.<p>
<p>So how is this good for McCain ? All his opposition tactics and lines will have been rehearsed and rerehearsed 1000 times by the time we get to the Primaries by these two and McCain will be the "...and in other Political News" short tag at the end of every bulletin. He needs to build a presence as we all know there are still quite a few in the Republican Party never mind the country who are somewhat displeased with him as nominee.<p>
<p>He'll have to up the speculation about his VEEP choice. It's the only way to keep him in the headlines with these two fighting for every delegate.

Look, neither one of us knows who would win between McCain and Obama. Recent polls say Obama beats McCain and McCain beats Clinton, but whatever, polls don't mean anything. Anyway, it's hard for me to take your opinion seriously if you write knee-jerk right-wing BS like "talk about how much America sucks like HUSSEIN Obama." Really? Your best attack against Obama is to fear-monger over his middle name and insinuate that all Democrats/liberals hate America? Ugh.

Actually you should reverse that. Osama Obama fits the description of the Anti-Christ pretty much perfectly. I'm not sure how old some of you are ... but you do realize the economy was about as strong as its ever been under the Clinton administration don't you?

Get a clue, this is the AICN talkback (not Meet The fucking Press)in which intellegent dialog is often nixed for smart assed commentary and vitrolic remarks, the only difference is we don't get paid for it but fat ass Rush Limbaugh does.<p>It's not up to me to contribute to any party because at the end of the day, it's ultimately up to the voters to decide who should sit in the White House and not because my comments or anyone else can change that.<p>And talk about contribution, this chrisssmm guy is already giving the Neo-decepti-cons
a bad name. (as if they don't have one already.)

If you're not gonna vote your conscience, whatever it might be, don't vote at all. Some people probably spend more time debating PS3 vs 360 than they do on taking just a half-hour to read up on the issues and beliefs of the candidates. Don't be that guy.

Really, this is sad. I think a democrat will win in November, but if its Hillary we'll just enter the same old thing
I used to hate Obama, because my buddy who loves Nader thought he was the second coming. Then one day I was listening to a speech on NPR and this guy was saying amazing things about policy It was Obama. Now this was Policy talk, not his stump speech.
Obama needs to change his stumpy speech! He's brilliant when it comes to policy, but he's realized on his hope and change for too long.
The promising thing is that he's touching on the truly awful part of the Iraq war, and that's the money we are spending on it. With that money we can be sending kids to better schools, redoing transportation, put more police on the streets, give more college help, secure social security, increase border patrol by an incredible amount, have better security at the ports, spend more on intelligence (satellites, agents, radioactity screeners)--whatever your concern, a fraction of the Iraq war funds can get it for you. But we're just pissing it down the drain!
I don't understand Republicans, who root the war, with these soldiers giving their lives for our country, but then they recoil when it comes to taxes. So a life is okay to give to make America good, but a thousand or so bucks is way too much of sacrifice? Hypocrite assholes, that's what they are.

Republicans are more keen to support the war than democrats. The only difference is that although they say they support the troops, its pretty damn hypocritical that they think these guys should give their lives to a cause the government says is right, but the fucking recoil when the government tries to tax them for what the government says it right. If you want Americans to sacrifice all, atleast reject tax cuts! This is what disgusts me about Republicans, they want people to die while they get tax cuts. Here's an idea, give the troops a lifelong tax cut! Everyone else, if your so proud of the country, put your fucking money where your mouth is!

Republicans are more keen to support the war than democrats. The only difference is that although they say they support the troops, its pretty damn hypocritical that they think these guys should give their lives to a cause the government says is right, but the fucking recoil when the government tries to tax them for what the government says it right. If you want Americans to sacrifice all, atleast reject tax cuts! This is what disgusts me about Republicans, they want people to die while they get tax cuts. Here's an idea, give the troops a lifelong tax cut! Everyone else, if your so proud of the country, put your fucking money where your mouth is!

faith in the American people. McPot, I didn't realize that under Clinton we owed more than $9 trillion dollars? Oh, wait we didn't. He also got us out of a recession without putting us back into another one. Remember balanced budgets? Yeah, that was a Democrat who did that. Get your head out of your ass. Conservatives keep on marching that same line, "the economy's great," without backing it up with one bit of evidence. Even the federal reserve is spooked by how poorly the economy is doing.

The Republican agenda in this country is one of greed and entitlement. Protections and benefits are to be bestowed upon the corporations and the wealthy on the basis of maintaining their dominant status. Abortion is to be used as a poltiical wedge issue with no real regard for either sides of the debate. Islamic terrorism, instead of being rightly battled through idealogical measures, is instead fomented to perpetuate wars that benefit the war industry and drive our country deeper into debt. Anyone who supports an end to war and a more sensible tact towards terrorism is branded a traitor. Homosexuality is to be demonized despite the large number of closeted self-loathing rightwingers who engage in it. Jingoism and paranoia is substituted for Unity and national identity. Our borders are deliberately made porous and immigration laws given short shrift in order to allow its rich corporate constituents a supply of virtually free labor. It's always the Liberals' fault, and Clinton is to be blamed for everything. Period. Those are just a few of their greatest hits.

You always put things in a more clear-headed context. Thanks. In addition to being a soldier, you're also a fellow citizen whose opinion I value greatly because of the realities you've seen beyond our borders. And that's why I was so incensed to see a punk ass like Ashoko being "glad there are boots on the ground killing Muslims". You're wearing those boots, and the first thing I thought was how you described working with the Afghans and fighting alongside them against the Taliban. Your world is more complex than some shitstick cheering war on like some football game, and not appreciating your mission and what it's like to live on the edge of death. Anyway, I hope you get a piece of that guy who threw the dog over the cliff. I'm sure even cuntlick Hitlerites like Ashoko feel bad about that, though less about slaughtering human beings wholesale.

I'm glad the wingnuts are ignorant about the economy. It's not the Conservative wealthy who are gonna get fucked, but the middle of the road blind Hannity/Limbaugh lapdogs like the lot here who are gonna get royally fucked. I'd take pleasure in seeing them fucked, but I don't have that particular gene that triggers such an emotion.

I totally support giving the troops a lifelong tax cut. And protections from predatory lenders and companies who target military families as easy marks. <p>
Forget about making any sense out of the rightwing arguments - they'll as soon put a made in China yellow magnet on their car than give Vets the real benefits they deserve, if it costs them some tax dollars. And that's pretty sad of them to proclaim any love of their country when they are so hard pressed to contribute to it tax-wise. Bunch of fucking tards.

I voted for Obama in Ohio by absentee ballot, but my county went over ten points to Clinton. Oh, well at least I tried. <p>
BSB, yeah it's pretty sad that so many Republicans are voting against their own interest because they "don't like 'dem queer folk." I think we're beginning to see the party split though. As much as I loath Huckabee, he was at least using populace language and talked about corporate greed. The poor to middle class Republicans are starting to realize that their party has been fucking them over for years, which means it's time for more fear mongering.

You mean like darkening the face of Obama bin Laden in Hillary's most recent ad? Oh, cause I thought only us ignorant, homophobe, (probably Southern), white, fat, male, racist, sexist, war-mongering 'wing-nuts' (sorry to borrow a phrase there BsB) were the fear mongers?

I voted for Clinton in the NY primary, but have since warmed to Obama. Regardless, and despite my abhorence of her campaign's negative ads, I'll vote for her come November. And did you catch Panterarocks' self-congratulatory post saying how he voted for Clinton just to spite Obama and help McCain, because he actually followed Rush Limbaugh's instruction on how to abuse his right to vote? <p>
Well, the joke's on him. Because if you look at the actual voter turnout numbers from every single primary held so far, the overall turnout on the Dem side blows the Rep side by, in my estimation, a margin of nearly 2 to 1. In some cases even yesterday, the number of people who voted for Obama was more than those who voted for McCain and Huckabee COMBINED. That's fucking incredible.

Before you continue to judge, look back at yourself. You’re all throwing out some pretty damn stereotypical shit at anyone who doesn't line up with your exact ideology. Look, BsB and I have had some really good back-and-forth sessions here and we can 'kind-of' get along on things. I mean, the one thing that I clearly remember from the most blatantly liberal professor at the school that I went to was “Life is not black and white, it is just shades of grey.” Well, I laughed at him back then, but the years and wars that I have been through since have forced me into the realization that he was the most dead-on motherfucker there. Life is grey dudes….stop being so damn black and white about things.

In case you weren't reading last night, I will point out that my Republican Agenda post was a direct response to the Liberal Agenda post from OptimusCrime last night. Mine's the white to his black post (or vice versa). Somewhere in the middle is that grey.

You assholes could have clinched the nomination for Obama, but now we have to drag this crap out even longer. What were you thinking? It doesn't matter. It's too late for Hillary anyway. Obama's got too large of a lead on her. Screw Ohio and Texas.

why we are letting ohio and texas have this major impact on the democratic nominee. perhaps its just the media trying to have this big story, but everyone's gotta know that in the general election, texas is going to go red anyway, so those democratic votes are pretty much useless. I don't put any stock into the fact that way more people voted in the dem primary than the rep. because there is actually a close race for the dems. If i were inclined to vote republican, i wouldn't have bothered either since mcain has the nom in the bag. and the idiots in ohio are the ones who decided to give bush a second round, so what the hell are we listening to them for?
<P><P>anyway, to all you folks getting excited about clinton's "big comeback" - scoreboard.

Nothing will unify the Republican party faster than Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee. Not to mention the straight male Democrats who will gladly cross over to McCain just to keep from looking at Hillary's arrogant, patronizing face for four years.
<p>Way to go, Ohio. You fucked up yet another election.</p>

Madness is a mild term for the shitstirrers last night. Don't blame ya for skipping it. As for who to vote for ... I'll vote for the guy/gal who rights this ship called the USS AMERICA. I was liking Hillary until she went negative. It'll be interesting to see the general election. Both sides are in chaos. A lot will depend on who the VP noms are. And McCain is just pandering now. His true stripes will show during the debates and the Dittoheads will pull their hair out watching him.

Texas and Ohio were not meant to have a impact on the Dem nominee. That is why they are so late in the process; and why there are Super Duper Delegates. The DNC does not trust the voters(especially from TX and OH) to pick the nominee.

Texas and Ohio were not meant to have a impact on the Dem nominee. That is why they are so late in the process; and why there are Super Duper Delegates. The DNC does not trust the voters(especially from TX and OH) to pick the nominee.

I assume you were referring to my stereotypical Southerner quotation with your black and white comment. While my quote was obviously cartoonish, I stand by the belief that Republicans use social wedge issues so they can trick the poor and middle class into voting for them against their own economic interests. <p>
Wasn't it the Republicans who wanted to amend the Constitution to make marriage a union between only a man and a woman? This is just one example. Take a look at the issue of the ten commandments in schools a while back. They violated the separation between church and state and when the courts called them on it, they claimed the Democrats were trying to prevent Christians from practicing their religion when nothing could be further from the truth. Practice whatever religion you want, just don't push it on other people's kids. <p>
Meanwhile, the Republicans refused to increase food stamps in their economic package, even though it would have been distributed cheaply through a form of debit cards and it would have had an immediate affect on the economy instead of waiting several months. <p>
As far as the fear mongering goes, it has long been a Republican tactic, too bad most Democrats are too stupid to figure it out. When the Democrats decided to promise to stand up to the Republicans they won a huge victory in 2006, but since then have gone back to their fearful ways. All you need to do is look a few Republican adds (and unfortunately now Clinton's recent Texas add) to see instances of fear mongering. Furthermore, changing the terror alert levels for months old data during a presidential election seems more than a little suspicious to me. Take it for what it's worth. <p>
I will admit that things aren't so black and white. My previous post was talking about Republicans who are realizing that their party is not working for them economically. There are reasonable people on the other side of the aisle. I used to respect McCain until he aligned himself with a bigot like Hagee in order to suck up to the religious right. The Republicans are really good at campaigning, too bad they're not as good at running our country.

The real difference between Dems and Repubs is pretty slim - but the Repubs had their chance over the last eight years and they've done nothing but screw up and blame everyone else for their incompetence. Their control of Congress turned into a hedonistic free-for-all, where they laughed in glee while stepping on the necks of the minority party and engaged in every ethical lapse possible to make themselves rich. The war in Iraq was built upon lie after lie, resulting in a very rich Haliburton and a lot of dead American soldiers. The search for Osama Bin Laden was a stop-gap while Bush, Cheney, and Rove could manufacture enough lies to convince this country to go to war, and afterwards, the deficit (which was under control in the previous administration) has skyrocketed, plunging generations of Americans yet to be born into debt, as well as sending America itself into recession. The Republican response to criticism of their failings is to accuse people of being traitors and helping the enemy. In the meantime, the Iraq occupation has been one big recruitment push for those very enemies, who are bolder than ever since they know that our pre-occupation in Iraq prevents us from exerting any serious leverage anywhere else in the world, such as China or North Korea. Oh, and George W. seems to think the constitution is a piece of toilet paper. Time for some new blood, I say.

Tell me you're a sell out and an Uncle Tom because you don't do what the old white men and women running the Democrat plantation tell you to. Are they right?<br><br>Shouldn't you just get back to picking the liberal cotton, taking the welfare check and the foodstamps they've so generously provided for you, and vote the way they tell you to?<br><br>I'm also told that you aren't "thinking for yourself" when you decided not to vote with monolithically with the other 90-98% of the African American population. How is it that when you are one of the few of a very tiny percentage of people in your ethnic group that votes contrary to way the great majority of that ethnic group tends to vote, you're the one who isn't thinking for yourself? I'm just curious. Thanks!

I think the Republicans work best as an opposition party. 2010 will almost certainly see an increase in Republicans in the house and senate, if not a sweep, due both to statistics of history and Obama's fairly radical liberalism.<br><br>Given that I take the fascist conservative viewpoint that it's actually the American people, and not the government, that makes the country work, I'd like nothing better than a figurehead Obama hamstrung on every issue by contrarian Republicans. Or a similarly hamstrung Hillary.

Is smoking crack. McCain ain't Bush by a long shot, and will bend over backwards on every domestic issue and let the Dems ream him. And it will be a "Republican" problem, because the R. by this particular RINOs name. Same would be true of Huckabee, who mixes the unpalatability of a fundamentalists who wants to rewrite the consitution to be more Biblical with the socialism easily on par with any of the libs running . . . or Michael Bloomberg.<br><br>Again, I'm all for Obama for president. Once the vacuous rhetoric vanishes, to be replaces with actual policies, I foresee the potential for a Republican sweep in the house and senate in 2010. Go, Obama!

Except on National Defense, so you single-issue liberals are really worrying about nothing. McCain would be bad for the Republicans, long term, as a party, so you really ought to support him. But I don't care--I don't think McCain will necessarily wipe the floor with Hillary or Obama. I think they all have pretty even chances, and it's going to be close in either case, unless they start agitating too loudly for higher taxes and so on during the general election.<br><br>I was excited about voting for Bush in 2004 (and I despised Kerry, which helped). I was disappointed with the results, there, and I'm not at all enamored of McCain. I voted for Romney in the primary. Wheee! Even then, I preferred Fred Thompson, but he had dropped out by the time my primary rolled around.<br><br>
Hillary and Obama both have a good shot at the presidency against McCain. Although my mom, who is very liberal and voted for Nader in 2000, has said she might vote for McCain, depending on his VP, would not vote for McCain against Obama. I'm positive. She might go McCain against Hillary, but not Obama. So . . . you never do know.

Very nanny-state. Banning smoking (everywhere!), telling restaurants what kind of foods they can cook and how they can prepare them, etc., etc. Lots of command economy policies in the Bloomberg administration, which tends to be the dominion of socialists. He sure ain't a conservative. Not even close. On almost anything. Maybe, to some extent, on performance testing in schools. And that would pretty much be it.

This is why I voted for Romney in the California Primary. McCain is a RINO and Huckabee is an intense bible-toter. Two extremes of the "Republican" party.<p>
And I do appreciate the planning ahead. Once a Democrat returns to office, people will realize just the mistake they made. That's how it always goes... American Politics is a fucking pendulum: it goes one way for a while then swings back in response.

That gets people to vote Republican, you need to lay off the pipe.<br><br>The great majority of folks voting Republican do so for a panapoly of reasons, and while concern of the deconstruction of the traditional family (via things like gay marriage, marriage-lite, etc) are part of the issue set, there are plenty of other concerns: taxation, over-regulation, imminent domain, national security, immigration (not that any candidate in any party satisfies most conservatives on that issue), education, etc. If it were true, then those wedge issues would have kept the house and senate in Republican hands in 2006 . . . and they didn't. It was the actual performance of the Republicans, especially in fulfilling their pledges regarding things like Social Security reform, reducing taxes, reducing regulation, taking harder lines on immigration, etc--plus the ever-present politicians who can't keep their pecker in their pants--that helped contribute to their downfall. In many cases, Republicans lost because the base wasn't showing up. I vote Republican down the line in almost every election, and it ain't because of gay marriage. If a candidate, like Rudy (who supports gay marriage) got the Republican nod, I would have voted for him in a heartbeat, with less reservations that I have regarding John McCain.<br><br>
I'm in the middle-class, and have definitely been in the lower-middle-class in my life. I consider voting for Democrats to be against my own best interests (economic, national security, and otherwise). I don't think the government is going to do a better job with rich people's money than those rich people will--I tend to think that money is better off in the free market, and will get more done, for everybody. And even though the richest people in America (like Warren Buffet) tend to disagree, and think the government should take more of his money . . . I don't. Sorry. And not just because "taxing the rich" always somehow ends up increasing my taxes, too--in addition to the fact the rich either stop employing certain people, or stop buying things that certain people are employed to make, thus hurting me and plenty of other folks in the marketplace . . . but I digress.<br><br>
I vote Republican, I'm a conservative, and generally I don't vote on social issues, even though I have opinions on them. I don't think politicians are the folks to solve most social problems or issues. I was opposed to the anti-gay marriage amendment, for example--and the anti-flag burning amendment. That's not what the amendment process is for, douchebags.<bR><br>Anyway, McCain sucks. Vote Obama!

Ohio is uncanny for its accuracy in picking presidential winners. From 1904 through 2004, the Ohio victor won the presidency 24 of 26 times. No Republican has won the presidency without carrying Ohio since Abraham Lincoln was elected in 1860. Before Lincoln, three Republican candidates carried Ohio, but lost the national election: John C. Fremont in 1856; James G. Blaine in 1884, and Benjamin Harrison in 1892.
Only two Democrats in the last century – Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944 and John F. Kennedy in 1960 – won the presidency while losing Ohio. (FDR lost Ohio because the state’s governor, John W. Bricker, was the running mate for Thomas E. Dewey, the GOP nominee).

As someone that listens to all three hours of Rush each day, I can safely say that Limbaugh will never fully embrace McCain. He will vote for him in the general election, because it would be a vote against Hillary or Obama. With as bad as McCain is, Hillary or Obama would be far worse.<p>
Lesser of two evils...

You obviously do NOT know conservatives OR Senator John McCain! <p>But what do I know? As some of the more eloquent Obaminations in this talkback thread have pointed out, I'm just an ignorant black fool for voting my conscience. </p> So much for "toleration." It seems like the liberals only tolerate themselves and those who agree with their warped leftist social agenda.

While I disagree with the idea that Al Quaeda attacked us because we have a presence in the middle-east (we also have a presence in France . . . and in Canada . . . and in pretty much every area of the world), and Osama Bin Ladin commented on 9/11 being, in part, vengeance for the breakup of the Ottoman empire, amongst a few other grievances dating back over 50 years and, frankly, not having much to do with New York or the Twin towers) . . . still, it is a big issue, and if that's your issue that I understand why you'd vote against McCain. As it happens, that's probably one of the few issues I generally agree with McCain on (although I do not support the idea of pre-emptive war, and would not have gone into Iraq--rather, I would have invested that same money into building up our military, increased recruiting, missile defense, etc)--still, we broke it, we bought it. I don't think we can safely or easily or responsibly pack up our bags and go home . . . not that I think either Obama or Hillary will actually do that, either.<br><br>I didn't mean to minimize the issue, either way, I just don't like McCain, and that isn't going to change just because he's the nominee of the party I normally, party-line, vote for.

I like to think of myself as "robust". At 235 (and 5'11), I'm a bit above my recommended girth for the medical height-weight charts, but it will still take two of me to equal one Harry Knowles. Why in the world you would be interested in such a thing from beyond the grave, I have no idea. But then, you're Nixon--a president I despise for your creation of OSHA, the EPA, EOC, and many other busy-body nanny-state government organizations that torment hard working businessmen to this day. Also, you decided the government would be better at setting energy prices and food prices and put people out of business and choked the economy and gave us gas shortages everywhere, braniac. Stay dead, motherfucker.

Though I would prefer a nice vegetable curry. Man, that sounds good. Some tandoori chicken. Or some Vietnamese spring rolls (the real reason, in my opinion, for the Vietnam war).<br><br>Man, you're making me hungry, jackass. I'm on a diet. Not only did you do your best to sabatoge the U.S. economy, and did more than any president (save, possibly, FDR and LBJ together) to expand the U.S. government and help to create the modern nanny state, you're also trying to sabatoge my diet.<br><br>
Truly, you have earned the name: Tricky Dick.

I can get all sorts of ethnic cuisine, even in Memphis. Multiculturalism is really just a liberal plot to make me fat. If I had to invade Vietnam for a decent noodle soup, it'd be a lot easier to talk myself out of it.

I value his war service (that's an understatement - the guy was tortured). I don't like his close relationships with lobbyists. I think he will bring Paleo-Conservatism and some integrity back to the NeoCon-hijacked Reps. He's old and could be in a wheelchair and still be exponentially better than Bush. I know he doesn't intend to fight 100 years, and his statement about a presence of 100 years is not totally offbase. I hope the best person for the country wins, whoever it is. I think McCain should bitchsmack Rush.

I liked the post '94 Clinton Whitehouse quite a lot, and didn't much care for the whole impeachment thing. What a horrendous waste of money. And time. I would have preferred the Republicans advancing, I dunno, a conservative policy agenda, rather than a blowjob witchunt. But I digress. I'm all down with the free trade. And spring rolls. With mint leaves. Mmmm.

That's like running from the Jurassic Park T-Rex and into the waiting hands of Rawhead Rex. But yeah, Kim Jhong-Il doesn't need assassinating, and everything is still America's fault. Even though we don't kill people for trying to leave the country like North Korea, we're still the worst place in the world because Europe thinks we're 'arrogant'.

You ever met that guy in the group who is always negative, always nay saying? It's annoying. I'm pretty sure most conservatives feel like that about liberals. It just gets old. Its just we never ever hear anything positive from that side it seems. At least that's the perception. Doom and gloom gets old.

I'm not saying he doesn't have a legitimate greivance, I actually think he does. On the other hand, we certainly had a legitimate greivance with him, and the Taliban, after the manner in which he/they worked to express/defend their particular actions regarding that greivance, so I'm a little disappointed Afghanistan is not now the 51st state, or at least a wholly-owned subsidiary of Exxon/Mobil. Iraq, on the other hand, was a pre-emptive war against potential WMDs (that seemed to have vanished) and whatever Hussein might be able to do against America (not much, particular if we had spent the last 7 years building up the US military rather than engaging in pre-emptive wars based on maybe-might-bes-might-happens).<br><br>It is all related--just as our current war against terror is one possible, and hardly inexiplicable, response to Al Quaeda's (and radical Islams) chosen responses to past Western imperialism. I think there are other ways to engage radical Islam other than bombing them back to the stone age or surrendering to them . . . but if I had to pick between just those two options, I'd pick bombing 'em back to the stone age. A significant military response and a show of strength is response to terrorist attacks is not inherently the wrong response, or even a bad idea (re: our initial action in Afghanistan), irrespective of what blame the country might have in regards to creating the situation that led to the terrorism in the first place.<br><br>However, the Iraq war as a response to potential future terrorism seems questionable. If it had truly been a slam-dunk to plant a democracy there, I'd be for that, but I don't think it was ever a slam dunk. But perhaps that's just me.<br><br>But you know what the answer is. Obama '08!

McCain would NOT even slightly resemble a "third Bush term." That is just hateful and vindictive tactics that are typical of liberal hate-mongers. Bush and McCain were bitter rivals in the 2000 election, and this was part of the reason that I voted for Gore in 2000. I thought that McCain was the best choice then. I still think that he is the best choice out of all of the candidates. <p>On the other hand, there is a striking similarity between Barack Hussein Obama in 2008 and Jimmy Carter in 1976. Both of these candidates claimed to be "Washington outsiders" and offered little in regard to legislative experience. Jimmy Carter went on to be generally regarded as the WORST PRESIDENT OF THE 20th CENTURY! </p> <p>But I suppose that Carter had the advantage of at least having some military experience. Obama never served this nation in such a capacity. Rather, he served by representing the likes of fraudulent land-dealer Tony Rezko (aka "Rezko the Syrian") and his Chicago area slums. Obama received a great amount of wealth from this arrangement -- including the purchase of a mansion for an undervalued price which, ironically, was going to go up in even greater value a few days later when Rezko agreed to develop the land (an "insider" investment called a "bumblehead decision" by Obama). </p> <p>Obama's boss and buddy Rezko is currently being tried in Federal Court on multiple counts of fraud, wire fraud, and extortion. Ironically, he is being prosecuted by Robert Fitzgerald, the same Federal prosecutor who tried Scooter Libby (Cheney's aid). </p>

You can't be serious. So he can do what? Tongue kiss Ted Kennedy? Sign another Campaign Finance Reform bill that just outlaws conservatives outright? Or so he could drop the ball on Social Security reform again? Or so he can really work to get an immigration package that punished legal immigrants and rewards illegal immigrants? I like his tax cuts--both proposed and implemented, too--but he's a little bit too Dem-friendly for me, especially when it comes to letting them move forward their agenda, or trying to co-opt.<br><br>
Oh, I know. You want another giant Medicare prescription drug benefit boondoggle that will cost the US taxpayers billions while the pharmaceutical companies make off with the money, and scam artists bilk us for millions and sell the drugs for "grandma" on the gray market. I voted for Bush in 2004, with some reservations but with real enthusiasm, but I would not want another four years of Bush. Although we may get that, with McBush. Obama '08, Republican Sweep in 2010!

Doesn't anyone find it creepy or suspect that there are old ladies fainting at his rallies? He obviously hired them to do that to make his charisma seem even more powerful. If you don't believe me, type into youtube 'Obama's Fainting Ladies' and see how many states this snake charmer has pulled this stunt in.

At one rally, he fed everyone with just a single cup of coffee and half-a-donut. At a party at his house, dozens of people saw him turn water into non-alcoholic beer. The man works miracles. Obama '08!

That was just a friendly observation, not a statement of how bad or good things are. Yeah, I'm conservative, it doesn't mean I think things are perfect or imperfections should be ignored. Ironically, I think the reason Obama is doing so well is he focuses on imspiration and hope over "this is wrong, and this is wrong..." All the same, beauracracy is not an answer.

Have you ever read Thomas Sowell? One of the reasons I think liberals appear so negative is, in fact, the "conflict of visions", as Sowell puts it, between left and right ideologies. IE: the left's vision is utopian and categorical, while the right's vision is tragic and incremental, with trade-offs and costs regarding each solution. As such, anything that falls short of utopia is a tragedy and a dismal failure to the "vision of the annointed" and their utopian expectations, while conservatives tend to consider any outcome the product of multiple factors, some of which are going to involve costs that are inherently undesirable, but must be endured in regards to achieving the desired goal, which, even then, will tend to be something short of utopian.

I am an African American. <p>I served in the military. </p> <p>I am educated. </p> <p>I am currently in the lowest of low income brackets, as I am currently a postgraduate student.</p> <p>I am against abortion in all cases, except for rape, incest or endangerment of the mother. </p> <p>I am against raising taxes -- even in the upper income brackets. We the people know how to spend our money better than the government. </p> <p>Less taxes results in greater investment -- especially amongst the upper income families. It favors spending amongst lower income families (like us -- we can certainly spend it!). </p> <p>I am amazed that Democrats rally against government intervention from teh Patriot Act (meant for defense against terrorism), but they will lobby for government intervention nearly everywhere else (including the enforcement of getting my dog "fixed" -- even if we want puppies from this dog). </p> <p>I am against illegal immigration, but I realize that a border fence is not a single, viable solution. We need to document workers who are here illegally, and then tax them. We need to penalize businesses that hire illegal workers (often for slave wages). </p> <p> I believe in raising the minimum wage -- but only to the point of a living wage. If it is raised too high, inflation will result. </p> <p>I believe that welfare should be limited ONLY to those who cannot work. Measures should be taken that prevent the lazy from obtaining benefits that are meant for innocent children. </p> <p>I am against the liberals' attempt to redefine marriage from "husband/wife" to whatever suits their own private definition. However, I believe that "social contracts" should be recognized and legal, in which a worker can claim benefits for a spounse, a child, a caretaker, a loved one or a close relative. </p> This is why I voted for Senator John McCain. He offers a truly unique and conservative perspective that is not found in the inexperienced and unqualified likes of Barack Hussein Obama.

Such as the fact that your hero McCain came to the rescue of one of the biggest crooks in historty of this nation, And that is no exaggeration. Remember Charles Keating? Here is a little history lesson: Charles Keating was convicted of racketeering and fraud in both state and federal court after his Lincoln Savings & Loan collapsed, costing the taxpayers $3.4 billion. His convictions were overturned on technicalities; for example, the federal conviction was overturned because jurors had heard about his state conviction, and his state charges because Judge Lance Ito (yes, that judge) screwed up jury instructions. Neither court cleared him, and he faces new trials in both courts.)
Though he was not convicted of anything, McCain intervened on behalf of Charles Keating after Keating gave McCain at least $112,00 in contributions. In the mid-1980s, McCain made at least 9 trips on Keating's airplanes, and 3 of those were to Keating's luxurious retreat in the Bahamas. McCain's wife and father-in-law also were the largest investors (at $350,000) in a Keating shopping center; the Phoenix New Times called it a "sweetheart deal."
Now, lets talk about scandal. If you want to compare Rezko and Keating, be my guest. If you want to compare Obama and McCain, be my guest.

Which is why he got beat so thoroughly be Reagan. He also blamed the American people for everything wrong in his administration . . . only later did it turn out that he was (or, I should say, became) rabidly anti-Israel.<br><br>BTW, Jimmy Carter is the only president whose hand I've shaken. Heck, he was there (I think it was for Amy Carter's graduation from Memphis College of Art, my alma mater, but I'm not sure--may have just been a show). He did not have a firm grip, I'll say that much.

...so Tony "the Syrian" Rezko, whose cock was sucked by Barack Hussein Obama doesn't matter? Why do you attempt to help your weak candidate by trying to bring down a strong one (Senator McCain)? <p>You conveniently ignore the fact that McCain was never implicated in the Keating scandal. Yet this isn't good enough for liberals, is it? You would rather vilify someone in order to make your own inexperienced, unqualified candidate look better. </p> <p>You liberals truly are a sad bunch!</p>

McCain can hardly be called a conservative....but the only hope this nation has is the agenda of Barack Obama. Hillary's policies are too far left, Obama brings revolutionary ideas for centrist politics.

I want a border fence. Viable solution, my ass, it's a damn fence. We've built tens of thousands of miles of multi-lane interstates in this country, not to mention dammed (and extracted electricity from) some of the mightiest rivers in the world. We can't build a frickin' fence because it's not "viable"? Give me a break.<br><br>I'm also against the minimum wage. Period. Shouldn't have one. Putting a floor just makes it more likely that more people hit that floor and stay there. Get rid of the floor and let the market work. Huzzah!

He has several that cover the issue, including "A Conflict of Visions", but I think The Vision of the Annointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy is more readable, and packs a bigger whollop. While liberals read "What's the Matter with Kansas" to have their brows soothed about how regular folks can (gasp!) vote for Republicans, Sowell makes a serious, thought admittedly conservative, effort to detail the differences between left and right ideologies, and it explains a lot.<br><br>
http://shrinkalink.com/22158

I wrote my graduate thesis in Public Policy on Jimmy Carter. I was able to travel to the Carter Center in Georgia and interview him. I was also able to interview major players from his Administration. Carter is a nice guy -- but I would never have voted for him! He is a walking dilemma! He is a mostly social conservative in a party controlled by extreme liberals! He had no experience in politics or legislation. No wonder his presidency was a mess! <p>He really had a way of messing up the USA!</p>Small world, huh?

So, when confronted with the truth, you start name calling and acting like a child? Pitiful. Who cares if Rezko is Syrian, he did not ROB the U.S of 3.4 BILLION dollars. He did not cause the United States gov't to have to bail out the Savings and Loan institutions for Billions more. Billions of taxpayers dollars. He did not have Senator McCain ride to his rescue like Keating did. Oh, yes, Obama has not been implicated in Rezko either. And everyone - except you, says that what he did was in no way illegal. BTW I am not a liberal. But you are certainly a jackass. I am not uninformed, so if you want to rock and roll with me - in the words of your other hero, 'Bring it on'!

scandal, he just received a lighter sentence than the other Republicans and wasn't forced to step down. But he was actually implicated and was forced to pay fines. Obama, on the other hand, had no dealings with Rezko's illicit business and unlike McCain there has been no implication that he ever knew about the illicit part of Rezko's business.

If you missed Thomas Frank's attempt to explain the difference between liberals and conservatives, here's my review of it, if you're interested klattimus:<br><br>
http://shrinkalink.com/22159<br><br>I did a review of A Conflict of Visions, but it was really slight. I'm re-reading it now, as a matter of fact, and dog-earring the many things I want to quote in a more full featured review. One day.

Yes, I think that a border fence is needed -- but it isn't the only solution. If we build a 100 foot fence, the illegal immigrants (supported by their despicable government) will build a 101 foot ladder. <p> We really need to focus on prosecuting those who harbor or hire illegal immigrants. If illegal immigrants had no where to work or live -- then they wouldn't have a reason to come. </p> <p>As is, they are "breaking and entering" into this nation. They earn money "under the table" and then send it back to Mexico. </p> <p>If we strike immigration at the root -- money -- they we can stop the influx of this welfare drain upon our society. </p> Obama's plan? HE DOESN'T HAVE A PLAN! He is just an unqualified, inexperienced smooth talker. He has no plan -- except a chronic pessimism iterated by a bogus call for "change." Too bad he doesn't know what type of change he wants -- other than a desire to put liberals in charge of our taxes, defense and foreign/domestic policy!

To anyone who considers themselves conservatives, liberals, etc...<p>When responding to the other side and typing "liberal whores", "conservative assholes", etc...do you guys pound the keyboard with angry typing? Do you laugh when typing these messages? And how do you feel about Congress as a whole?<p>Oh, and Senator, MNG had some valid questions that need answering. Or are you having trouble getting up after fainting before?

I'll fuck you in your ass if I ever see ya, you chicken son of a bitch. You were gonna take me on? Come on and get me, motherfucker. Grab me by my ass and suck me off. I ain't gonna cum in your mouth because you're already dead." HAHAHA! I just found one of Sakers' recordings on youtube. You know the funny thing is that I had already heard parts of it when some guy named Art Vandelay edited a Tales From the Darkside episode, Halloween Candy with Sakers' voiceovers. I always thought he said all that stuff himself until I found this. Thanks, Mr. McCain. Now I have another eccentric legend to read about, just like Brian Peppers and Wesley Willis. :D!

Because it makes getting over slower. There would still be holes--in some cases, things like shared sewer systems that go under the border! Those would have to be addressed. But the superfences, where they have been put up, have worked, and make crossing slow, giving the border patrol plenty of time to intercept. Obviously, punishing businesses that hire illegals at slave labor rates should be a part of the program, too. I agree a 100% percent with you, there.<br><br>Obama has a plan, ccchhhrrriiisssm. While the details aren't published, you can find most of them in the series of Five Year Plans of Josef Stalin. Check 'em out: that's pretty much Obama's plan for America. But they'll be groovily updated for 21st century technology.

Is actually very well-written, but the idea (as some of the dust jacket blurbs suggested) that it had anything meaningful to say about conservatives, conservative ideology, or why conservatives had for a time been doing well in national elections, is just silly. It's anecdotes and pretty prose. But well written, and worth reading if your a conservative wanting to see how the curious liberal views conservatism (unlike, say, Garrison Keillor, whose Homegrown Democrat makes conservatives out to be death-dealing, selfish swine).

I actually just ordered A Conflict of Visions from amazon. I know you recommended the Anointed one, but Conflict was cheaper. It's also more recently written I take it so that appeals to me. I read a quick bio on Wikipedia. Guy sounds fascinating.

There is no reason to comment about LIES. You can spread as many lies that you want about Senator McCain and the Keating 5 info, but he was never "sentenced" (as you claim) in the matter. <p>If you truly examine the issue (which also involved astronaut and Democratic Senator John Glenn), you would realize how silly the issue was. The wacky liberal Democrats who controlled Congress at the time were simply looking for scandal. </p> <p>The Keating affair was far less "crooked" than the Whitewater affair of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Nor was it as obviously wrong as Barack Obama's work and wealth from Tony Rezko (which Obama himself admitted was a "bumblehead decision"). </p> In the end, the decision comes down to a choice between Obama, an inexperienced, unqualified candidate (less than a single term in Congress) -- and McCain, a war hero who spent over 20 years in the military and over 25 years in the Legislature. </p> <p>My money (and my vote) is on Senator McCain. Now, if he could just talk Romney or Condi to serve as the Vice President...</p>

Wyoming and Mississippi will rapidly turn that around, and Obama is STILL in the lead in both delegates and popular vote, nation-wide. <p>Bill Clinton was on Rush Limbaugh's show to promote Hillary... Oh, how far they have fallen.

I'm just going to have to read this Kansas book now too, in order to see what the hell everyone's talking about. I got to say Node, I just read Kevin's review of it and it was fairly discrediting. But then again, I haven't read it.

Read Thomas Sowell's Vision of the Annointed and Conflict of Visions if you want actual insight into conservatism, rather than feel good bromides about how evil conservatives are. As far as what happened to Kansas: perhaps. I don't live there. I'm sure some folks there don't see it as so terrible, and I doubt every problem there is caused by "run away capitalism" (killing the goose that lays the golden eggs is not capitalism, because it is self-defeating, and deprives the capitalists of long-term capital accumulation, but that's a digression) alone. Of course, I tend to believe that many of the worst things that happen in the economy are bi-partisan efforts . . . like the reforms in banking regulations that helped lead to our current "mortgage crisis". Lots of folks of all political stripes had their hands in that.

I think I have said that before. To whit: American Continental Corporation, the parent of Lincoln Savings, went bankrupt in 1989. More than 21,000 mostly elderly investors lost their life savings, in total about $285 million. This occurred largely because they held securities backed by the parent company rather than deposits in the federally-insured institution, a distinction apparently lost on many if not most depositors until it was too late. The federal government covered almost $3 billion of Lincoln's losses when it seized the institution. Many creditors were made whole, and the government then attempted to liquidate the seized assets through its Resolution Trust Corporation, often at pennies on the dollar compared to what the property had allegedly been worth and the valuation at which loans against it had been made.
In 1989, Keating, when subpoenaed to testify before the House Banking Committee, invoked his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth AmendmentIn 1996, on the eve of the retrial of the federal case, Keating entered a plea agreement -- he admitted to having committed bankruptcy fraud by extracting $1 million from American Financial Corp. while already anticipating the collapse that happened weeks later. In return, the federal prosecutors dropped all other charges against him and his son, Charles Keating III. He was sentenced to the four years he had already served. And your beloved McCain was a huge part of this. Do you really want to compare Rezko to Keating? Because if you do, I wonder if you are one of the flat-earthers. You know, one of the people who still beleive the earth is flat.

So my review is biased therefore. You might also check out Garrison Keillor's homegrown Democrat. Which I reviewed here: <br><br>
http://shrinkalink.com/22160
<br><br>Heh. A day of shameless self-promotion for my blog that I never update. ;)

The great and powerful Oz has spoken!<br><br>Seriously, I have my opinion. Natch, to a liberal, "saner" is defined as "adequately conforming to my own worldview". Frankly, I think the liberal reviews I read of Franks book were mostly pretty sane. Just mostly wrong. And I cite places where I think Franks had a point . . . but, absolutely, anyone truly interested should read the book for themselves and make their own decisions.<br><br>
Or is that "insane"?

I was so sure this book was absolutely discredited, I wouldn't bother reading it. But since it is obvious that Kevin is biased, I can't pass any judgement on it having not read it. Admittedly, I'm most likely not going to read any "saner" reviews, as they are likely as biased as Kevin's, but since I share Kevin's bias I opted to read his take. I'm sure Franks argues on behalf of himself more thoroughly than any review anyway.

Utopia X by Scott Wilson does a great job of illustrating how political correctness will corrupt the world and how the new fascism will come in the guise of anti-fascism. It is a bleak future where all white men are forcibly castrated because of the insecure minorities.

You are the reason people hate conservative assholes like yourself. You are too stubborn to actually listen to anything other than the lies the people you admire constantly feed you. It just goes to show a PHD can't buy someone common sense.

way to step out on a limb there, georgie. <P><P>kind how he ran his administration<P><P>"wha's that? all my republican buddies want me to do this thing? Ok, if it's good with them, its good with me. Saves me from thinkin'"

SENATOR BARACK OBAMA:
"Like a Virgin" is all about a
girl who digs a guy with a big
dick. The whole song is a
metaphor for big dicks.
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON:
No it's not. It's about a girl
who is very vulnerable and she's
been fucked over a few times.
Then she meets some guy who's
really sensitive--
OBAMA:
--Whoa...whoa...time out Greenbay.
Tell that bullshit to the
tourists.
GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY:
(looking through his
address book)
Toby...who the fuck is Toby?
Toby...Toby...think...think...
think...
OBAMA:
It's not about a nice girl who
meets a sensitive boy. Now
granted that's what "True Blue" is
about, no argument about that.
SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS:
Which one is "True Blue?"
GOVERNOR MIKE HUCKABEE:
You don't remember "True Blue?"
That was a big ass hit for
Madonna. Shit, I don't even
follow this Tops In Pops shit, and
I've at least heard of "True
Blue."
JOHN EDWARDS:
Look, asshole, I didn't say I
ain't heard of it. All I asked
was how does it go? Excuse me
for not being the world's biggest
Madonna fan.
MAYOR RUDY GULIANNI:
I hate Madonna.
HILLARY CLINTON:
I like her early stuff. You know,
"Lucky Star," "Borderline" - but
once she got into her "Papa Don't
Preach" phase, I don't know, I
tuned out.
OBAMA:
Hey, fuck all that, I'm
making a point here. You're gonna
make me lose my train
of thought.
MITT ROMNEY:
Oh fuck, Toby's that little china
girl.
MCCAIN:
What's that?
MITT ROMNEY:
I found this old address book in a
jacket I ain't worn in a coon's
age. Toby what? What the fuck
was her last name?
OBAMA:
Where was I?
JOHN EDWARDS:
You said "True Blue" was about a
nice girl who finds a sensitive
fella. But "Like a Virgin" was a
metaphor for big dicks.
OBAMA:
Let me tell ya what "Like a
Virgin"'s about. It's about some
cooze who's a regular fuck
machine.
I mean all the time, morning, day,
night, afternoon, dick, dick,
dick, dick, dick,
dick, dick, dick, dick, dick,
dick.
HILLARY CLINTON:
How many dicks was that?
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN:
A lot.
OBAMA:
Then one day she meets a John
Holmes motherfucker, and it's
like, whoa baby. This mother
fucker's like Charles Bronson in
"The Great Escape." He's diggin
tunnels. Now she's gettin this
serious dick action, she's feelin
something she ain't felt since
forever. Pain.
MITT ROMNEY:
Chew? Toby Chew? No.
OBAMA:
It hurts. It hurts her. It
shouldn't hurt. Her pussy should
be Bubble-Yum by now. But when
this cat fucks her, it hurts. It
hurts like the first time. The
pain is reminding a fuck machine
what is was like to be a virgin.
Hence, "Like a Virgin."
MITT ROMNEY:
Wong?
OBAMA:
Fuck you, wrong. I'm right! What
the fuck do you know about it
anyway? You're still listening to
Jerry-fucking-Vale.
MITT ROMNEY:
Not wrong, dumb ass, Wong! You
know, like the Chinese name?
MCCAIN:
Give me this fucking thing.
MITT ROMNEY:
What the fuck do you think you're
doin? Give me my book back!
MCCAIN:
I'm sick of fuckin hearin it Mitt Romney,
I'll give it back when we leave.
MITT ROMNEY:
Whaddaya mean, give it to me when
we leave, give it back now.
MCCAIN:
For the past fifteen minutes now,
you've just been droning on with
names. "Toby...Toby...Toby...
Toby Wong...Toby Wong...Toby
Chung...fuckin Charlie Chan." I
got Madonna's big dick outta my
right ear, and Toby Jap I-don't-
know-what, outta my left.
MITT ROMNEY:
What do you care?
MCCAIN:
When you're annoying as hell, I
care a lot.
MITT ROMNEY:
Give me my book.
MCCAIN:
You gonna put it away?
MITT ROMNEY:
I'm gonna do whatever I wanna do
with it.
MCCAIN:
Well, then, I'm afraid I'm gonna
have to keep it.
BILL RICHARDSON:
Mitt Romney, you want me to shoot him for
you?
MCCAIN:
Shit, you shoot me in a dream, you
better wake up and apologize.
HUCKABEE:
Have you guys been listening to K-
BILLY's super sounds of the
seventies weekend?
OBAMA:
Yeah, it's fuckin great isn't it?
HUCKABEE:
Can you believe the songs they
been playin?
OBAMA:
No, I can't. You know what I
heard the other day? "Heartbeat -
It's Lovebeat," by little Tony
DeFranco and the DeFranco Family.
I haven't heard that since I was
in fifth fuckin grade.
HUCKABEE:
When I was coming down here, I was
playin it. And "The Night the
Lights Went Out in Georgia" came
on. Now I ain't heard that song
since it was big, but when it was
big, I heard it a million-
trillion times. I'm listening to
it this morning, and this was the
first time I ever realized that
the lady singing the song, was the
one who killed Andy.
HILLARY CLINTON:
You didn't know Vicki Lawrence
killed the guy?
HUCKABEE:
I thought the cheatin wife shot
Andy.
GOVERNOR BILL RICHARDSON:
They say it in the song.
HUCKABEE:
I know, I heard it. I musta zoned
out whenever that part came on
before. I thought when she said
that little sister stuff, she was
talkin about her sister- in-law,
the cheatin wife.
MITT ROMNEY:
No, she did it. She killed the
cheatin wife, too.
OBAMA:
You know the part in "Gypsies,
Tramps and Theives," when she says
"Poppa woulda shot his if he knew
what he'd done?" I could never
figure out what he did.
WAITRESS
Can I get anybody more
coffee.
MITT ROMNEY:
No, we're gonna be hittin it.
I'll take care of the check.
She hands the bill to him.
WAITRESS:
Here ya go. Please pay at the
register, if you wouldn't mind.
MITT ROMNEY:
Sure thing.
WAITRESS:
You guys have a wonderful day.
MITT ROMNEY:
I'll take care of this, you guys
leave the tip.
(to MCCAIN)
And when I come back, I want my
book back.
MCCAIN:
Sorry, it's my book now.
MITT ROMNEY:
Bill, shoot this piece of shit,
will ya?
Richardson shoots MCCAIN with his finger.
HUCKABEE:
Okay, everybody cough up green for
the little lady.
Everybody whips out a buck, and throws it on the table.
Everybody, that is, except Ron Paul.
HUCKABEE:
C'mon, throw in a buck.
REPRESENTATIVE RON PAUL:
Uh-uh. I don't tip.
HUCKABEE:
Whaddaya mean you don't tip?
RON PAUL:
I don't believe in it.
HUCKABEE:
You don't believe in tipping?
BILL RICHARDSON:
(laughing)
I love this kid, he's a madman,
this guy.
MCCAIN:
Do you have any idea what these
ladies make? They make shit.
RON PAUL:
Don't give me that. She don't
make enough money, she can quit.
Everybody laughs.
HUCKABEE:
I don't even know a Jew who'd have
the balls to say that. So let's
get this straight. You never ever
tip?
RON PAUL:
I don't tip because society says I
gotta. I tip when somebody
deserves a tip. When somebody
really puts forth an effort, they
deserve a little something extra.
But this tipping automatically,
that shit's for the birds. As far
as I'm concerned, they're just
doin their job.
HILLARY CLINTON:
Our girl was nice.
RON PAUL:
Our girl was okay. She didn't do
anything special.
MCCAIN:
What's something special, take ya
in the kitchen and suck your dick?
They all laugh.
HUCKABEE:
I'd go over twelve percent for
that.
RON PAUL:
Look, I ordered coffee. Now we've
been here a long fuckin time, and
she's only filled my cup three
times. When I order coffee, I
want it filled six times.
MCCAIN:
What if she's too busy?
RON PAUL:
The words "too busy" shouldn't be
in a waitress's vocabulary.
HUCKABEE:
Excuse me, Ron Paul, but the last
thing you need is another cup of
coffee.
They all laugh.
RON PAUL:
These ladies aren't starvin to
death. They make minimum wage.
When I worked for minimum wage, I
wasn't lucky enough to have a job
that society deemed tipworthy.
HUCKABEE:
Ahh, now we're getting down to it.
It's not just that he's a cheap
bastard--
JOHN EDWARDS:
--It is that too--
HUCKABEE:
--It is that too. But it's also
he couldn't get a waiter job. You
talk like a pissed off dishwasher:
"Fuck those cunts and their
fucking tips."
MCCAIN:
So you don't care that they're
counting on your tip to live?
Ron Paul rubs two of his fingers together.
RON PAUL:
Do you know what this is? It's
the world's smallest violin,
playing just for the waitresses.
MCCAIN:
You don't have any idea what
you're talking about. These
people bust their ass. This
is a hard job.
RON PAUL:
So's working at McDonald's, but
you don't feel the need to tip
them. They're servin ya food, you
should tip em. But no, society
says tip these guys over here, but
not those guys over there. That's
bullshit.
JOHN EDWARDS:
They work harder than the kids at
McDonald's.
RON PAUL:
Oh yeah, I don't see them cleaning
fryers.
RUDY:
These people are taxed on the tips
they make. When you stiff 'em,
you cost them money.
MCCAIN:
Waitressing is the number one
occupation for female non-college
graduates in this country. It's
the one jab basically any woman
can get, and make a living on.
The reason is because of tips.
RON PAUL:
Fuck all that.
They all laugh.
RON PAUL:
Hey, I'm very sorry that the
government taxes their tips.
That's fucked up. But that ain't
my fault. it would appear that
waitresses are just one of the
many groups the government fucks
in the ass on a regular basis.
You show me a bill says the
government shouldn't do that, I'll
sign it. Put it to a vote, I'll
vote for it. But what I won't do
is play ball. And this non-
college bullshit you're telling
me, I got two words for that:
"Learn to fuckin type." Cause if
you're expecting me to help out
with the rent, you're in for a big
fuckin surprise.
JOHN EDWARDS:
He's convinced me. Give me my
dollar back.
Everybody laughs. Mitt Romney's comes back to the table.
MITT ROMNEY:
Okay ramblers, let's get to
rambling. Wait a minute, who
didn't throw in?
JOHN EDWARDS:
Ron Paul.
MITT ROMNEY:
(to John Edwards)
Ron Paul?
(to Ron Paul)
Why?
JOHN EDWARDS:
He don't tip.
MITT ROMNEY:
(to John Edwards)
He don't tip?
(to Ron Paul)
You don't tip? Why?
JOHN EDWARDS:
He don't believe in it.
MITT ROMNEY:
(to John Edwards)
He don't believe in it?
(to Ron Paul)
You don't believe in it?
JOHN EDWARDS:
Nope.
MITT ROMNEY:
(to John Edwards)
Shut up!
(to Ron Paul)
Cough up the buck, ya cheap
bastard, I paid for your goddamn
breakfast.
RON PAUL:
Because you paid for the
breakfast, I'm gonna tip.
Normally I wouldn't.
ROMNEY:
Whatever. Just throw in your
dollar, and let's move.
(to Senator McCain)
See what I'm dealing with here.
Infants. I'm fuckin dealin with
infants.

XIPHOS: Excuse my cluelessness about the term "soldier" vs. Marine. I was also told by someone I know, who is ex-Navy, that saluting with the left hand is bad. I was holding a Frappucino in my right hand at the time, but that's no excuse either. <p>
REM: I also heard they're making special Ham bullets for use in the MidEast. You know how Rambo has exploding tip arrows? Kinda like that ... except ham. <p>
BRASKY: That McCain post was uncharacteristically grey of me. I know. But in the end I care more about my country than any party loyalty. I know you do too. <p>

Some rag heads are making too much noise in the neighborhood. Can you spare some DU or mustard gas so I can do some cleansing? <p>
Also, how do you keep your house niggers in check? Mine are getting a bit uppity for my taste, and the whip's not doing the job I need. <p>
Yours in White Power, <p>
BSB

That slowed the Muslims down in World War II. Damned if our solution to ending this war once and for all isn't right there in front of us, but our hands are tied by the hand wringing heart bleeding liberals who want the troops to pull out of Iraq and leave it as it is, in complete disrepair with insurgents taking over and raping women, then stoning them to death for being raped. And that is not propaganda. They actually stone women for being victims of rape, but the women's libbers actually believe that they have the right to that kind of culture. WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE ON THIS!?? Eh, women's liberation was a front bankrolled by the Rockefellers anyway so they could have a reason to tax the other half of the American population. Rockefeller himself has confirmed this.

That's what deserves to happen. Yuns are too fuckin stupid to realize them Muslims want to take over America and put all our women in mummy masks and only leave the huts to powder their ass or somethin.

Though stagnant would have to depend on your time frame, as I used to be pretty liberal--though that was many years ago. The last year I really thought of myself as a liberal was probably 1991. As for reveling in my ideology . . . you don't like yours? You don't enjoy it? You don't think you're right? That seems a little odd, to me.

This must be the price she payed to the senior Dems in charge of the party for allowing her to go on as she is still the underdog as far as I can see.<p>
<p>Will Obama return the favour though ?<p>
<p>Oh and that previous post should have read<p>
<p>McCain Leaves White House as Bush promises to campaign for McCain. It's all over.<p>
<p>That's better.

And covers much of the same topics, and perhaps in a more academic style, but I really think Vision of the Annointed just nails it perfectly. It is, without a question, my favorite of the two. His Cultures series is very good, too: Conflict and Cultures, Conquest and Cultures, etc. Just my opinion.

I found it funny that he would want to smear pig's blood on bullets and buses, yet at the same time liberate Muslim women. That's one textbook case for supporting psychiatric medication. Tom Cruise is so wrong.

So they can live like American women. Damn, yuns are stupid. Who the fuck said anything about the women spreadin pig's blood? It's the JEWS spreadin pig's blood on the buses to protect themselves in the HOME COUNTRY, Jerusalem.

It was absolutely hilarious. The entire time Bush was hogging the spotlight and talking over McCain. It must have been really awkward for McCain in front of those reporters. I almost felt sorry for him. He seemed beaten down as he had to jump through yet another hoop for the lockstep Republicans.

"You on the other hand are a conservative idealogue, that like a religous zealot, relies on ignorance, fear, misinformation, and a blind faith that you are right and others are wrong, and even scarier, that your ideas are superior to other's and that they must be spread from your electronic pulpit."<br><br>Is that opinion fallible? Potentially wrong? No? Interesting.

Try rereading my post before you call the kettle black stupid. I wasn't talking about why we entered WWI, only that we shouldn't have. And you're understanding of why we went in is both vague and naive in any case. We weren't bound to enter it because we're a free sovereign nation. As for WWII, I said that it wouldn't have happened had it not been for the gross unfairness of the Treaty of Versailles. If you don't understand this then you seriously need to pick up a book sometime. You're going off about how bad the Nazis were and I'm saying they wouldn't have been able to rise to power in the first place. So put your glasses on when you read, or bid me farewell as promised.

At my caucus (about 400 people there), the McCain stump speaker got booed off the stage and actually threatened with violence. Anyone who thinks conservatives will rally to McCain doesn't know much about true conservatives. And anyone who thinks he will hold on to those independents once the Democratic nominee starts hammering him on his 100 year war comment, doesn't know much about independents. His only chance of getting elected is for Hillary to win the dem nom. That might bring enough conservatives back into the fold, but even then, I'd say he needs another 9/11 to have a good chance. It's amazing that democrats don't get this. Even the freakin' KKK came out and endorsed Obama last week because they so hate McCain and Hillary. Obama's shortcomings aside, I can't imagine why any democrat would vote for Hillary, knowing that it will fire up the Republicans to turn out for McCain.

Xiphos could eat your babies and punch your nose into your brain. He could send the entire Marine Corps at your doorstep, have them open fire, then say goodbye to your bloody pulpy mass. <p> So be careful what you say. He is not a girl. He was joking. And he certainly doesn't need a whiny bitch like me to defend him. Xiphos for life!

that was one woman who made up for her looks by pleasing her man. Laura Bush looks like she's been drugged for years and kept in a basement between photo-ops. She's always got that look on her face like she just hit some really good Bud and she's gettin' zombified

I can read quite well. So you want to be 'schooled' huh? Well here goes. America was pulled into WWI for many reasons, some being economic - Europe was our largest trading partner, and Germany threatened that status, and cultural, we indentified with Free democracies - and Germany was not one. American sentiment was anti-war, until the german u-boats sank a cruise liner that had 128 Americans on-board. Killing all. But, we still did not enter the war. Germany pledged not to do so again (Sussex agreement). But, anti german sentiment built up in this country, and Germany saw the writing on the wall, so, they sent a letter to Mexico, asking the Mexican gov't to promise to attack the Southern U.S. if America declared war on Germany. They also, revoked their promise to stop attacking cruise ships and other maritime entities. Wilson, who campaigned for Free and unfettered use of the seas, had no choice but to declare war, which the country enthusiastically backed! That is how we got into WWI. Now, our entry into WWII as I pointed out was precipitated by the bombing of Pearl harbor by the Japanese. We declared war on them, their allies, Italy and Germany, declared war on us. One last thing, WWI was started, in part because of military build-ups throughout Europe, and a series of interlocking agreements that forced the allies to come to the aid of one another. Read your history dumb-ass. Let me re-iterate because you seem slow. Germany pulled a reluctant U.S. into WWI. We got in, and we stopped them. The treaty, was put into place to stop Germany from re-arming -well that sure worked didn't it? WWII found the U.S. once again on sidelines, but the Axis powers once again pulled us in. You have anything else to say? Before you do, do some research. Because if you want to rock and roll with me, you better be prepared to back it up!

It doesn't matter that she won Texas and Ohio. She's still losing in the race for delegates. She didn't win by enough. The whole idea of her coming back is a fucking egotistical farce cooked up by Clinton's press corps. It works because our news media (righties and lefties) FUCKING LOVE politics as horse race, even when it's clear there is no mathematical probability that Hillary comes away with the popular vote, even if she sweeps most of the rest of the country in a string of squeaker wins like she did with Ohio and Texas (10 percent and 3 percent)! Obama has it in the bag...<p>That said, most people thought the year 2000 was the beginning of the new millenium, too. So, the fish-headed majority is thinking this is some amazing feat? All this struggle, and the fact remains she DIDN'T win the Texas caucus, and only walked away with something like 8 delegates! Obama's STILL a hundred and some delegates ahead! It's clear who the winner is, and who the losers are.<p>McCain and the Republicans are winning because only the Dems could defeat themselves, and having Clinton say stupid shit like 'McCain has life experience' is shit that goes into fucking political ads. Her team has misplayed this election since day fucking one, underestimating the public's desire for change (real or not), and underfunding herself.<p>The numbers do not lie, Clinton's going to have to suck a LOT of dick to get this one. I'm talking party leaders, superdelegates, the fucking cops in Denver better bring their cherry flavored dick cream, because she simply CANNOT win by the numbers. She's going to have to steal it.<p>Once again, leaving the American public the fucking losers. Clinton's ego needs to sit the fuck down and let the real fucking fight for the White House begin.<p>Math doesn't lie; Clintons do.

Great point, though I think Edwards is going to go with Obama, I have a feeling his populist leanings drive him away from the corporate money taking habits of Hillary.<p>And as an aside, because I thought it was humorous to see something like WWI brought up in a modern political debate...<p>The reason the penalties placed on Germany didn't work was because (like Iran and many other nations since) the penalties were also economic sanctions, killing the common folk without using bullets. We stopped trading with Germany, we really tried to fuck that country right out of existence along with everyone else on the winning team in WWI... You starve people long enough, fuck with their very possibility of existence and national identity, a guy like Hitler can make the rest of the world seem like the bad guy (hey, we know a guy who does that now, treats the World Community like they're the ones persecuting us, who's like that?)...anyway, nationalism, mixed with a recession, and jingoistic fucking morons created the Germany of the 30s and 40s. So if we're leveling blame as to why Germany became Nazi-fied, it can be put upon the entire world who thought it would be fair to try and fuck Germany out of existence for their shitty behavior.<p> My father and I are both Dems, to be fair in the discussion, to lay all my cards on the table, so to speak. My father switched parties when Ted Kennedy fucked Carter at the convention, and only recently came back for Obama, and guess what? The Dems start fucking circling the wagons and shooting EACH OTHER.<p>Fuck, this process gets more and more fucked up each year.

Look the Media just can't just cover a race by reporting the candidates positions on the issues. (assuming they ever did) They need Zazzz!<p>
<p> Or to put it another way this thing has been painstakingly sculpted as a series of comebacks, shock losses and personal journies from day 1. The Media will always paint this and shape it using polls and catchphrases and the candidates are entirely complicit.<p>
<p>So when the Media accepted wisdoms of the week go their way they lap it up when they don't they fire at the Media.<p>
<p>I agree though that Hillary is still the underdog and the convention will be a massive event now.<p>
<p>The attacks might help McCain but he will after all be making miost of the same ones himself eventually and the flipside is all the attention on Hillary Obama and McCain will struggle to keep in the spotlight.<p>
<p>November is lookin like a loooong way away now though, no question.

Solid thought, but I'd warn against cozying up to the line that the Media have been harsh with Hillary.<p>The media take on whoever they can, and the fact is that Hillary's people have fucked her up more than the media. People she delegates to have said stupid shit that offended blacks, have said stupid shit that offended middle-Americans (Her negative Wisconsin ads cost her the election by TWENTY points...), she doesn't have the money to go hard forever, and she doesn't have the record to stand in a Union state like Pennsylvania...It's a long way to November, but it's damned near over for Clinton. Someone should tell her to sit down. Just because she just won back Kamchatka, doesn't mean she's won the game. (A little RISK nugget for all the nerds out there like me who like to play RISK! ;) )

Quote: "I have a feeling his populist leanings drive him away from the corporate money taking habits of Hillary."<P>Agreed. Although, I've heard that he doesn't really like Obama or Hillary. But I think his stance on corporate money and an Iraq pull-out will make him side with Barack.<P>I like Edwards. He's a scrapper. And I have little doubt that if a Democrat takes the White House, he will end up in a Cabinet position. Possibly AG but more likely Labor.

How is everything in Nazi land? <p>All kidding aside, considering the German Empire's role in WW1, they were damnably lucky their country was intact at all, let alone mired with debt. Taking into account the staggering loss of european life, property damage, loss of materiel, and considerable reconstruction costs, the treaty, while harsh, but nor overly so, was by no means unwarranted. WW2 began because of German pride, ambition, and prejudice, to say anything less is pantently absurd.

I don't think the Media (as a whole) has been too harsh or too soft on Hillary or Obama they have a pack mentality sure but rest assured by the time this thing is over both candidates will have been both sugarcoated to death and reamed hard at various points. (and so will McCain)<p>
<p>One other thing the World Media is entranced by this race because of the historic nature of the two and rarely can two Dems have had such wall to wall coverage on the world stage before.

Not wanting to jump too far into someone elses battle, but one thing that always intrigued me was that supposedly some complex argument over Telegraph Poles in Germany was said to be a catalyst for the madness that followed.<p>
<p>No real political point to that other than the strangest, smallest and unremarkable events can start an avalanche & grind the World to the edge of the Abyss.

The oft mentioned Treaty of Versailles, while in-arguably a factor in the rise of Nazism in Germany, was far from the only factor. Too often people cite the treaty- without knowing the facts, because they heard about it in their history class. Some historians and political observers cited the treaty because a prominent German politician in the Weimar gov't said so. His actual quote was " Versailles and Moscow". By Moscow , " ...he meant that subversive communist activity guided by the Russian Bolshevist government had undermined democracy in tandem with the Nazis." Germany, was weakned economically, but not militarily. And then, for only a period of 5 years after the war. The Germans biggest gripe was that they never acknowledged that they had lost the war, or where even responsible for it. It led to 'conspiaracy' theories. That the Weimar gov't had been stabbed in the back by socialists and democrats. This in turn led to the creation of radical parties - such as nazism. Germans, did not suffer - yes, the terms where harsh - they lost a war, but they were not so harsh as to impose hardships on the German people, they were not so harsh as to stop Germany from re-arming. Where do you think they got the money from to create the largest army in the world less than twenty years after WWI? No, Nazism, was a by-product of the germans own refusal to accept defeat. Og theior own psyche. many nations around the world have suffered defeat in war, but only one created Nazism. Yes, Versailles contributed, but it is a base canard to say it was the major factor. It absolves the Germans for creating one of the most heinous, despicable parties and movements this planet has ever seen.

I eat turtles on the half shell to remain fertile, cuz my wife loves to absorb my mountain mandew. You buncha ricky fu quacks think I'm jokin' about these godless muslims. They WILL accept our law. Our government is so superior that it has created guitars the size of a blood cell. We have mechanical grasshoppers what do our spyin' for us in Sandland. H-we are gonna WIN!

Just to clarify I'm not saying this ruckus over Telegraph Poles caused the War. Just that it was a factor.<p>
<p>I imagine some beaurocrats arguin over this and someone tells them this negotiation could be a contributing factor to an unimaginable World War of desctructive power. The Beaurocrats look up (and if they are real beaurocrats) sniff haughtily and both say "more than our job is worth to consider that" and carry on exactly as before.

there are fucking tons of things in the bible that are laid out a lot more clearly then any references to homosexuality being wrong that christians don't live by. you cherry pick the bits that suit and ignore theother things. if you are going to live by the book it has to be all or nothing. you can;t pickout the bits you like and claim them to be the standard by which we should all live while ignoring other points.
The big reason I see people give is that marriage is about starting a family...so therefore all straight people who are unablke to conceive should not be allowed to get married either.I mean really if bob and steve decide they want to get married how does it seriously effect anyone but bob and steve?? it doesn't.

When you say the terms of Versaille weren't so harsh as to impose hardships on the German people....I mean wow. We're done. It's like arguing with someone who says the sky isn't blue and I feel ridiculous now for even bothering.

Nice guys. my wife and I watched the Oscars at their place. Wicked fondue.
<p>
Oh, wait, I guess my wife and I will have to get divirced, won't we? how can our marriage mean anything in a world where Bob and Steve can also be married, in our neighborhood, sometimes dogsit for us, pick up or mail when we're traveling, etc. etc. etc...
<p>
Wouldn't it be great if some of the folks who are really against gay marriage actually put their money where their mouths are and refused to get married, or had their present marriages annulled as a form of protest? Until that starts happening I can't take them seriously.

The Republicans tried to screw things up by voting for Hillary in the primary because they think Hillary is less of threat to McCain. Then they show up at the caucuses and claim that Obama's folks have unfair advantages. Then the Republicans get on talkbacks like this and try to act like Obama's supporters are a bunch of whiney babies. They do this kind of thing like clockwork. I like both Hillary and Obama...but the Republicans have this thing for the "divide and conquer" strategy. Wake up Texas Democrats and use your brains, cause you are being had by these manipulative Rovites. Regardless of who gets the democratic nomination,Clinton or Obama, they should choose the other for their running mate. It is the ONLY way for the democrats to win the presidency. Don't let the A-holes divide the Democratic party cause we need every single Who in Whoville to shout in UNISON to bring a positive change to the country and save us all.

You can do it. I mean, seriously you can do it. If someone tells you the sky isn't blue, you take them outside and point. And they go "Ah," so it is. Or you find out they are colorblind or something. But you don't just give up. Otherwise they might never know they're colorblind! <p> All you have to do is bring up the specific conditions in the treaty that directly caused hardships for the German people. Don't give up. Never ever ever give up.

<p> The Treaty of Versailles in 1919 had a humiliating effect on the German people. Germany had once been a powerful nation; the second biggest industrial power in the world, after the USA. After its defeat in World War I, Germany was forced to accept the crippling terms enforced upon them by the Allies. This involved Germany losing their overseas colonies in Africa and Asia, as well as parts of German territory. Germany was also forced to accept guilt for starting the war. </p> <p> Germany also had further military restrictions – the air force was disbanded, the army was limited to 100,000 men and the navy was limited to 15,000 sailors, six battleships and no submarines. Germany was forbidden to put troops in the Rhineland and France was entrusted to patrol it with troops to enforce these restrictions. </p> <p> Germany also had to pay reparations for damages ensued by the war. This meant having to pay £6600 million (about $13 billion) in compensation. However, the land that Germany lost included 10% of her industry and 15% of its agricultural land. Therefore, this made the reparations extremely difficult for Germany to pay. In 1923, in order to collect their own compensation, the French occupied the Ruhr region in Germany – the biggest industrial area in the country. This made it even more difficult for Germany to pay other Allies the reparations. </p> <p> Kaiser Wilhelm fled from Germany and a new form of government was set up in his place – the Weimar Republic. </p> <p> Historical assessments </p> <p> A common view is that France's Clemenceau was the most vigorous in his pursuit of revenge against Germany, the Western Front of the war having been fought chiefly on French soil. This treaty was felt to be unreasonable at the time because it was a peace dictated by the victors that put the full blame for the war on Germany. </p> <p> Henry Kissinger called the treaty a "brittle compromise agreement between American utopianism and European paranoia — too conditional to fulfil the dreams of the former, too tentative to alleviate the fears of the latter."[citation needed]</p> <p> In his book The Economic Consequences of the Peace, Keynes referred to the Treaty of Versailles as a "Carthaginian peace".[6] That analysis was disputed by French Resistance economist Étienne Mantoux. During the 1940s, Mantoux wrote a book entitled The Carthaginian Peace, or the Economic Consequences of Mr. Keynes in an attempt to rebut Keynes' claims; it was published after his death. </p> <p> More recently it has been argued (for instance by historian Gerhard Weinberg in his book A World At Arms[7]) that the treaty was in fact quite advantageous to Germany. The Bismarckian Reich was maintained as a political unit instead of being broken up, and Germany largely escaped post-war military occupation (in contrast to the situation following World War II.) </p> <p> The British military historian Correlli Barnett claimed that the Treaty of Versailles was "extremely lenient in comparison with the peace terms Germany herself, when she was expecting to win the war, had had in mind to impose on the Allies". Furthermore, he claimed, it was "hardly a slap on the wrist" when contrasted with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that Germany had imposed on a defeated Russia in March 1918, which had taken away a third of Russia's population, one half of Russia's industrial undertakings and nine-tenths of Russia's coal mines, coupled with an indemnity of six billion marks.[8] </p> <p> Barnett also claims that, in strategic terms, Germany was in fact in a superior position following the Treaty than she had been in 1914. Then, Germany's eastern frontiers faced Russia and Austria, who had both in the past balanced German power. But the Austrian empire fractured after the war into smaller, weaker states and Russia was wracked by revolution and civil war. The newly restored Poland was no match for even the defeated Germany. </p> <p> In the West, Germany was balanced only by France and Belgium, both of which were smaller in population and less economically vibrant than Germany. Barnett concludes by saying that instead of weakening Germany, the Treaty "much enhanced" German power.[9] Britain and France should have (according to Barnett) "divided and permanently weakened" Germany by undoing Bismarck's work and partitioning Germany into smaller, weaker states so it could never disrupt the peace of Europe again.[10] By failing to do this and therefore not solving the problem of German power and restoring the equilibrium of Europe, Britain "had failed in her main purpose in taking part in the Great War".[11] </p> <p> Regardless of modern strategic or economic analysis, resentment caused by the treaty sowed fertile psychological ground for the eventual rise of the Nazi party. Indeed, on Nazi Germany's rise to power, Adolf Hitler resolved to overturn the remaining military and territorial provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. Military build-up began almost immediately, in direct defiance of the Treaty, which, by then, had been destroyed by Hitler in front of a cheering crowd. "It was this treaty which caused a chain reaction leading to World War II" claimed historian Dan Rowling (1951).Various references of the treaty is found throughout many of Hitler's speeches and in pre-war German propaganda.(See also: Nazi propaganda) </p> <p> Alternative viewpoints </p> <p> The interpretation that Germany was seriously weakened and humiliated by the Versailles Treaty has been disputed by some historians.[12] Some arguments include: </p> <p> * The commissions to supervise disarmament were withdrawn and the reparations payments were reduced and eventually cancelled, to mention just some of the changes made in Germany's favour. It is worth mentioning that the financial burden of reconstruction was shifted from Germany to those countries that were actually occupied and devastated by the war. </p> <p> * Germany's industry and economic potential were less affected than its European enemies, and although weakened by the war, Germany was relatively stronger vis-à-vis its enemies in 1919 than it had been in 1913. </p> <p> * The creation of Poland, so derided by the critics of Versailles, shielded Germany from its potentially most powerful adversary, Russia. Independent Poland thwarted the Bolshevik advance into a war-weakened Europe at the Battle of Warsaw in 1920, at a time when Germany faced Communist-inspired unrest and revolution. </p> <p> * Germany kept a big chunk of its disputed areas populated by Polish-speaking minorities (especially where the minority was quite passive), while the most active nationalist population seceded. This actually spared Germany many ethnic conflicts that had marked the history of Imperial Germany and helped in the Germanisation of the remaining Poles. </p> <p> * The post-war situation in the Balkans left Germany much more powerful than any of its eastern or south-Eastern European neighbours, none of which showed any signs of working together against Germany. </p> <p> * In short, Germany was strong enough to dominate Europe once more within two decades of its defeat in World War One. </p> <p> It should also be realized that, if Germany had won the war, it intended to impose a treaty of similar severity on its foes.[13] Its terms would have included </p> <p> * Annexation of portions of France and Belgium, and all of Luxembourg; </p> <p> * Belgium would receive Nord-Pas de Calais in compensation, but would accept German occupation of all militarily significant areas; </p> <p> * France to pay reparations sufficient to prevent French rearmament for fifteen to twenty years; </p> <p> * France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Austria-Hungary, (and Poland, if it becomes independent of Russia) to join an economic association under effective German control. Italy, Sweden, and Norway to join later. </p>

...I've only read your first 6-7 posts, but *please* tell me that you're only 11 years old. That would mean you've time to grow and mature, and also assure the rest of AICN that there's at least one lunatic that won't be casting a Presidential election ballot later this year. In the case that you *aren't* 11 years old (or younger), I encourage you to copy your posts into the body of one unified letter, and send said letter to "The Daily Show."

That's what neo-con godfather Ronnie asked people in the '80s. Well, let's see now... During the end of the Clinton years, I was making more money than I'd ever made in my life. Bush comes in with his administration and my economic life goes to hell and gets worse with the second term in a trip to down-the-toilet land.
I make 40 percent of what I made in in 2000. So yeah, I take it all fucking personally and don't EVER tell me I can't. Fuck Bush, Fuck the Republican party as they've done NOTHING for me but leave me in a possible Chapter 11 situation before the year's out unless things get better. So Hillary or Obama, either one's getting my vote.

saying hillary is not the best candidate btween her and obama is the stupidity of america showing thru....the same stupidity that re elected george bush...and hillary is the only one that will beat mccain...i dont know where the intelligence in this country has gone but alot of the stupidity i mentioned is represented pretty well in this talkback. the 8 yrs that bill clinton were in office were the best 8 yrs this country has seen in my lifetime and im 37yrs old..sure if u believe the propaganda that the recession was leftover from the clinton era is just brain dead...u cant go from a surplus before bush gets elected to a deficit after hes elected , almost instantly...if obama gets the nomination its a guarantee that mccain wins the white house...yes its true..theres enuf rednecks in this country that will not elect a black man to president...i want hillary to win, shes been in the white house, was active in bills white house and im sure she has her own pair of testicles somewhere under those pantsuits...i think obamas a nice guy and knows how to speak, but i never heard of him from anywhere before he announced his candidacy and im sure most of america hasnt either...i even know who mccain is and i dont follow politics...and most americans will pick the name they know has been around instead of some new jack they dont know what will do in the whitehouse...i dont see obama being able to handle any crisis..i see him doin a "cant we all get along" routine with foreign policy...just my thoughts but if hillary dont get the nomination i think im not voting at all. just be another wasted vote like the last 2 for me....first one was robbed by bush and his brother and buddies in florida and the supreme court and in 2004 by all the retards that re-elected this scmuck.....go hillary !!!

This is beginning to sound somewhat familiar....<p>
<p>Of course this MUST all be BILLs fault right ? Riiiiiiiiight ^_^ Don't think anyone's gonna buy that horseshit for a millisecond, because like it or not, if the economy tanks on your watch you WILL get the blame just as much as if the economy was booming you WOULD claim the credit.<p>
<p>I now look forward to hearing incredibly complex justifications of how Bush as mere President cannot possibly have any effect or influence on the economy and indeed how Iraq was someone else's fault too.

the failure in iraq was on bush seniors watch.....as soon as kuwait was liberated and the precious oil saved bush pulled shwarztkopf out....he was ready to go all the way to baghdad...and was dissapointed when they told him mission accomplished....funny how iraq was an issue to both bush's, more proof that W was holding a grudge over iraq for daddy...i love how they try to blame bill clinton for everything that went wrong in the last 8 yrs...incredibly lame..

i'm sure that other people have come up with this joke, because it just seems so obvious to me.... but here it is.... <p>
----------------
<p>
On the subject of Hillary Clinton winning so many of the states in the primaries..... <p>
I guess people still want a bush in office.....
<p>
-ME
<p>
<p>
Thoughts? Comments?

Why do the democrats feel the need to create super delegates? The Republicans do not use them. It is simple and more honest. Super delegates will put the control in the hands of a few hundred people that can be legally bought off. What were the Democrats thinking?

Ok, not to put to fine of a point on it, but one should be very carfeul when atempting to bolster an argument by waving the Wikipedia entry around. It is not Peer reviewed - which is the standard for any paper to be taken seriously - not that this forum is a modicum of standards, but even so, the very paper you posted is filled with contradictions and inaccuracies. Just an FYI.

u mean like hillary's bush ? btween her legs ? lol.... if she has a bush its covering up a huge pair of testicles , cuz she is very manly in many ways....thats why i think she should be president....she makes obama look like a lil schoolgirl....id rather have a president walk in the room and have other politicians and foreign dignitaries or presidents cover their crotches in fear of hillary kickin em, than whip their dicks out so obama can suck em...ya know what i mean ?

Yours was probably the most reasonable AICN post I've read in quite some time. Unfortunately, you seem fettered with a need to make sense. Taking a new twist on a statement made by Chris Rock, I'd say that--- unlike you--- certain posters on AICN don't let making sense get in the way of their argument...

Thank you. I am of the opinion that one should at least try to present a sound argument around here, even if that is in the minority. You never know who might actually learn something. Nothing wrong with give and take, but it does reach an end around here quickly when the extremists, or just plain wack-jobs go off their meds. A famous quote goes "There are still people who beleive the earth is flat. They have a right to beleive that, but i do not have to debate them."

You dudes are easily the target of that 'Family Guy' joke where Brian's arguing with a donkey about whether or not Kevin Bacon was in 'Footloose'.<p>Argument is not the automatic gainsaying of any point the opposing view brings up. (And if Michael Palin understands that, surely you can.)Besides, the both of you, we agree for the most part.<p> The Treaty of Versaille wasn't the only factor, and you clearly understand that. I didn't say that the Treaty of Versailles was the only thing, and your tack of misrepresenting what I said is a 'low' or 'cheap' debate tactic. I will say that the treaty humiliated the Germans, made them feel unsafe. Hitler took advantage of that. Nowhere in anything I said should have been taken otherwise. However, in this day and age, the 'art' of debate has been relegated to history, and guys like you will just bray and bray, ad hominem attacking and attacking like moondoggy, taking an objective viewpoint I made and equating that to Nazi-love or some other such nonsense.<p>Enjoy your hay, and your fellows in the Bremen band, because I'm simply done arguing with jackasses. You make sense, but you seem to be saying the same exact thing I said and claiming I said something entirely different.<p>For the record, I posited that the hardships after WWI opened the door to Nazism. When a country has been hit, defeated, or terrorized, they look to an authoritarian leader to walk them out of it.<p>As for this thread, my last word on the political scene, is: It's scary to be an old, tired, willfully ignorant citizen these days. Oh, and speaking as a progressive thinking white guy, it's heartening to know that it's not a great time to be a white guy neither. It's not only likely, but damned near certain there's a Democratic President in your future. That means, you have to pay for health care for junkies, prostitutes with AIDS, and of course that wonderfully apocryphal 'welfare mother who bilked the system for a million dollars' or whatever 'fact' you want to believe. Democrats make the populace pay into the Commonwealth, Republicans suck the dicks of their corporate leash-holders, and provoke the ignorant with the sharp stick of 'God, Guns, and Gays', while many of their number believe in Gun Control (Brady) believe in a non orthodox Christian religion (Romney) and are taking advice from gays! (GASP - Mark Foley)<p>In all of the New Testament, Jesus mentions hate about ONE thing: Hypocrites, religious friends. He only HATES HYPOCRISY. Get your shit in order, is all I'm saying. I wonder how Bill Clinton would re-decorate the Lincoln bedroom? Hmmm...<p>

Perhaps if you stuck to a single and coherent argument, it might makes sense. Perhaps if you did not launch ad hominem attacks, your points might at least have some validity. Perhaps if you did not go off on some very strange tangents about - well, i am not even sure what it was about. Dems or Republicans and AIDS and welfare moms and just WTF were you trying to say anyway? Well, anyway, let me at least try to answer one point that i did understand - the treaty. I re-read your first post, and it was filled with exagerrations, and vitriol. As I said, the treaty was harsh. And it was used by Hitler as a scapegoat for every real and percieved inequity in germany. But the truth is far more complicated, which is what I was trying to point out. There is not enough time to do into detail here, but in a nutshell. Germany was beset by not only the treaty, but by an increasingly powerful Bolshevic revolution - in Russia. Gemrany was also suffereing as the WORLD was suffereing, because of a depression. The treaty was not enforced - specifically with regard to military spending - as evidenced by how rapidly Germany re-armed. The reparations, which seemed enormous, were paid off on only a fraction, and then reduced further. The german psyche suffered because of the defeat which they could not accept, and the treaty became a convenient scape goat, but my argument all along is that Nazism would have arisen regardless, because the germans could not accept defeat. The great depression, the worldwide depression, would have pushed the creation of Nazism whether the treaty had been in effect or not. The threat of Bolshevism would have helped create Nazism, as it did, whether the treaty was in effect or not. I argue against absolving the german people for the creation of Nazism simply because the treaty is a convenient scapegoat. Now, if you can make a coherent singular, persuasive argument that refutes any or all of that, without resorting to ad hominem attacks, please do. But I tend to doubt it.

is I'm afraid that she might appear as whiny, and crying/over sensative president, and appear as weak to certain enemies of our great nation, and decided to take the opportunity to attack us.... <p>
that's the shit I'm worried about.....